CAP's top priority for 2011

[RiverAux]

What should be CAP's top priority in 2011 at the National Headquarters level? 

Personally, I think it should be the development of a document outlining their vision of how CAP ground teams (in the generic sense, not just SAR) should be trained for and utilized during natural disaster response operations.  What key skills should CAP bring to the table?  What training should we be doing that currently isn't part of the program?  Are we really interested in being part of ground ops after natural disasters in the first place or should we stick with air ops only? 

[arajca]

I think you need to expand it include base operations. There is even less thought given to base ops than ground teams.

[Al Sayre]

Aww c'mon, you guys know that uniforms have the highest priority

[manfredvonrichthofen]

A plan to bring our ES program and training to current times and try to be a little more advanced. You know, try to be the cutting edge of ES both on foot and in the air. I know our tactics are great both ground and air. But bring the knowledge and equipment more current. I know that many of us are still using locaters that were really old when I was using one as a cadet.

[Major Carrales]

A plan to bring our ES program and training to current times and try to be a little more advanced. You know, try to be the cutting edge of ES both on foot and in the air. I know our tactics are great both ground and air. But bring the knowledge and equipment more current. I know that many of us are still using locaters that were really old when I was using one as a cadet.

This requires strong local units willing to change.  Thus, I think our main priority is to promote strong squadrons with rejuvenated staffing and clearer comprehensive training programs.  From that, ES, CP and AE programs can prosper.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

More of an emphasis on mentoring new members.

Too often we just sign them up, take their money and their fingerprints and then put it back in their lap as "well, what do you want to do?"

Perhaps some kind of aptitude test?

[Major Carrales]

Aptitude test, if not standardized and administered from a higher lever, can lead to ruin, political infighting and a lot of other stuff that can be divisive.

We really need to take some time and money to outfit our units with updated equipment and other necessities to help better accomplish the missions.  This can be grassroots (raising money locally and bolstering equipment inventories) or from "up top, downwards" through seeking and getting grants and larger donations from manufacturers.

It is telling of just how poorly many units are outfitted. 

[Eclipse]

We really need to take some time and money to outfit our units with updated equipment and other necessities to help better accomplish the missions.

Before we start outfitting or training anyone, we need to define the mission and the customer, and not necessarily in that order.

After that we need to set the scale and scope for each wing/group/unit, including expectations for performance which include a graduated ramp-up.

Meet step 1, get money for step 2, etc.

The best thing CAP could do for itself would be a 6-month stand-down where nothing is done but a reboot.

[PHall]

A plan to bring our ES program and training to current times and try to be a little more advanced. You know, try to be the cutting edge of ES both on foot and in the air. I know our tactics are great both ground and air. But bring the knowledge and equipment more current. I know that many of us are still using locaters that were really old when I was using one as a cadet.

But is this what our "customers" want from us? Some research in what our customers want from us is a much better idea.

[BillB]

If doing a six-month standown, better not schedule any missing aircraft during that period, or plan to send out boy scout ground teams.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Don't you think our customers would want for us to be better outfitted with gear and to be trained the best as we possibly can?

I don't think a stand down would be smart in the slightest bit. We would suffer because we would be called for missions, and tell them we can't because we are revamping our programs. Our customers would immediately think we are unorganized and can't be relied on. Not to even mention those that would suffer from us not able to perform for missions.

[PHall]

Don't you think our customers would want for us to be better outfitted with gear and to be trained the best as we possibly can?

I don't think a stand down would be smart in the slightest bit. We would suffer because we would be called for missions, and tell them we can't because we are revamping our programs. Our customers would immediately think we are unorganized and can't be relied on. Not to even mention those that would suffer from us not able to perform for missions.

Better outfitted for what mission? We could be out fitted better than International Rescue, but if it's for a mission our customers don't want or need, it's a waste of money.

Talk to our "customers" first and find out what they want/expect from us and then build from there.

The world is changing out there and missions we have performed in the past may not be relevent to todays needs.

[Eclipse]

If doing a six-month standown, better not schedule any missing aircraft during that period, or plan to send out boy scout ground teams.

That would generally be the first nay-say at the USAF table and could reasonably be accommodated.

Corporations do this all the time and somehow keep their doors open - see Six Sigma, Kaizen, ISO, and similar.

ES operations could be scaled back to "current ops" using existing operators with no additional changes or training allowed until
after the stand down.  There are more than enough people in the channel for this.

AE & CP could certainly be "all stopped" during the process.  I'm not talking about shutting down, I'm talking about every member in the
organization focused on fixing those things in CAP which never get the attention they need, and remain a thorn in CAP's collective side.

CAP is a unique organization with amazing people, rich history, and phenomenal opportunities for growth and service, but it also has some "issues" which need to be ironed out once and for all, which could be done with some intestinal fortitude, acceptance of attrition, and a little brute-force effort.

When I clicked over 10k posts I went to look back at my first posts in 2005 - we're still arguing about discussing the same things 5+ years later, and then I thought back to when I joined in 99, and realized we've basically been having the same circular discussions for the entire decade of my membership - a lot of times trivial matters which should have been settled with a sentence, but left ambiguous
allow for bad feelings or hassle by people who should not have to be bothered (i.e. volunteers).

A decade ago I had seasoned members in my AOR because of "over-administration" and "lack of mission focus" - 10 years of technology
should have streamlined that, but because we have so many sandboxes, we've probably actually made things harder.  Sure in some cases responses are quicker, but like so many corporations have done, NHQ assumes things are "easier", so they keep adding to the pile.

100 "easy" tasks, aren't any better than 10 "hard" ones, and the reporting tools, such as they are, allow for hyper-focus on the trash
cans while the warehouse is running amok.

[RRLE]

we need to define the mission and the customer

Good start but what do you do if CAP has more then 1 customer (it does) and the customers do not agree on what the mission is.

For starters, CAP customers are the USAF, the general public when it needs SAR, the general public for AE, cadets and senior members. The last two groups may or may not have the same mission in mind either.

[PHall]

Our main customers on the Air Force side are AFRCC and AFNORTH. Then there are the various state EMA's for state and local stuff.

The requirements from the AF side should be pretty constant across the country, but the state requirements will vary by each state.
Each Region and Wing needs to research what our customers in each state needs and then to tailor their training and equipping to meet those requirements.

It's not a one size fits all world out there.

[JohnKachenmeister]

What I would like to see from CAP in 2011:

1.  OFFICER TRAINING.  The new online OBC is good, or at least a good start.  Our junior officers are still our weakest asset.  We need a comprehensive training program, best conducted at the Wing level I believe, for our incoming officers.  Do you "Corporate Advocates" know of any major national corporation that limits its training of new management personnel to a 1 hour online course?  That's what the cashiers and secretaries get, not the managers.

2.  Rethinking of GT Doctrine.  When CAP got into the SAR business, there were virtually NO ground search assets.  Now every Sheriff Dept. has a SAR capability, and there are tons of ground search specialists with way better training and equipment than us.  What they lack is the skill and equipment to coordinate with an aircraft.  We have that.  Why not train small 2-3 man teams to work with another team as a "Air Coordination Element?"  The wheel has already been invented... at the Army battalion hq. there is always one AF officer pilot to coordinate air support.  Why not develop skilled aircrew as equally-skilled ground guys to coordinate with civilian SAR assets?


3.  Increased support to Law Enforcement.  We can legally perform Law Enforcement missions as a corporate mission under an MOU, but we shy away because they are scary.  As long as we are looking for new "Customers" and missions, why not consider supporting small counties with air support when their budgets cannot support an organic aviation unit?  Let's put the "Patrol" back in "Civil Air Patrol."

[JohnKachenmeister]

Oh yeah, I forgot because somebody mentioned this one once:

4.  Development of a doctrine for establishing airbase operations.  Imagine Katrina II, and the local CAP unit can stand up once the wind dies down and can run all airbase operations as C-130's and Blackhawks arrive in swarms.  Good communications and good training is all we need.  I mean... flight line, air traffic management, security, traffic and parking control, media relations, management of volunteer unloaders, provisions for food service and hydration for aircrews and base personnel, overnight facilities, communications, computer resources, weather data... all the stuff they had to set up in Haiti after the earthquake WE should be capable of establishing within hours of a disaster right here.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

What I would like to see from CAP in 2011:
2.  Rethinking of GT Doctrine.  When CAP got into the SAR business, there were virtually NO ground search assets.  Now every Sheriff Dept. has a SAR capability, and there are tons of ground search specialists with way better training and equipment than us.  What they lack is the skill and equipment to coordinate with an aircraft.  We have that.  Why not train small 2-3 man teams to work with another team as a "Air Coordination Element?"  The wheel has already been invented... at the Army battalion hq. there is always one AF officer pilot to coordinate air support.  Why not develop skilled aircrew as equally-skilled ground guys to coordinate with civilian SAR assets?

Are you talking about getting away from the current aspect of GT Ops as they are now, with personnel not being deployed as ground searchers, only as support to coordinate with our air Ops?

[JohnKachenmeister]

^Standard Army answer, Lieutenant.  Depends on the situation and the terrain.

UDF we are not going to lose.  It is WAY down, but still a big part of our mission load, and it is ours alone.

In some localities, we might be the go-to guys in ground ops.

In most cases, the restrictions on our employment, the use of cadets, and the need to have law enforcement support present anyway means that LE would be the principal asset in ground searches, with CAP officers to coordinate the air assets.

[Eclipse]

we need to define the mission and the customer

Good start but what do you do if CAP has more then 1 customer (it does) and the customers do not agree on what the mission is.

For starters, CAP customers are the USAF, the general public when it needs SAR, the general public for AE, cadets and senior members. The last two groups may or may not have the same mission in mind either.

Then perhaps narrowing the customer base, or the scope of what we provide is required.

Fireman put out fires, they do not enforce the law.

Policemen enforce the law, they do not put out fires.

Occasionally, because of circumstances, they work together, but you won't see an LEO pulling a hose line, or a fireman writing a traffic ticket.

We try to be all things to anyone who asks, to the detriment of overall performance and image.