I've often thought that CAPR35-5 and 50-17 should be consolidated.  I understand why they aren't, they are under the purview of separate staff areas (35-5 Personnel and 50-17 Professional Development).  But they are complimentary regulations and one can hardly be significantly altered without an effect on the other.  PD officers do need to understand the promotion/progression system, and personnel officers do need to understand the training requirements for member progression.

I would split this up into chapters that break down into:

*General Provisions
*Grade Appointment of Former or Current Armed Forces Personnel, Cadets, Members
   -Training Requirements of Current or Former Armed Forces Personnel
   -Training Requirements of Former Cadets
*Professional Appointments and Promotions
   -Training Requirements of Professional Appointees
*Squadron Grade Officer Training Progression
*Squadron Staff NCO Training Progression
*Field Grade Staff Training and Progression
*Senior NCO Training and Progression
*Wing/Region/National Level Officer and NCO Training and Progression

I would create a hybrid SLS/CLC course for Armed Forces, Former Cadets, former Members, and Professional Appointments.  This would either inform, introduce or bring them up to date with current policy.  Many Professional Appointments, at least for the first few years will work in their professional area.  They are supposed to anyway to be eligible for the promotion (there should be minimum service requirement like there is for Wing+ commanders and Sr. NCOs).  Too many people in these categories come in and do no professional development at all, and then blame the organization for their trials and tribulations.

Each chapter below Professional Appointments, would indicate the duty performance training and service requirements to achieve that grade.  They would specify the authority to promote to that grade, etc.

Okay ready for you to tell me where this concept is flawed, as it surely may be.

You're on the right track, but I'd start by looking at the pamphlets instead of the regulations instead for thinking about division of labor.

Personnel has several items that could be put into PD and several that could be put into Administration. Some PD duties can also be properly shuffled to Admin.

Why would "armed Forces" get different classes?

They have no more knowledge of CAP, per se, then anyone off the street. This idea that
people with military experience have some sort of force powers in regards to CAP
fails on inspection.

Same with dark-side cadets.  By far cadets have absolutely zero idea what it takes to run a squadron,
nor a clue how to lead adult volunteers. Every dark-sider I've ever dealt with walks in with a handful of
cadet-level "this is how we fix CAP" ideas to be greeted by a delicious reality sandwich.

Any training with value will be the same for everyone, and assume no one has a clue walking in, otherwise you're
just perpetuating the same issue.

Quote from: Eclipse on February 20, 2020, 09:28:52 PMWhy would "armed Forces" get different classes?

They have no more knowledge of CAP, per se, then anyone off the street. This idea that
people with military experience have some sort of force powers in regards to CAP
fails on inspection.

Same with dark-side cadets.  By far cadets have absolutely zero idea what it takes to run a squadron,
nor a clue how to lead adult volunteers. Every dark-sider I've ever dealt with walks in with a handful of
cadet-level "this is how we fix CAP" ideas to be greeted by a delicious reality sandwich.

Any training with value will be the same for everyone, and assume no one has a clue walking in, otherwise you're
just perpetuating the same issue.

I think his point there was to make sure that service members got the introduction to the CAP way vs the AF, Army, Navy, Coast Guard, or Marine way, regardless of service related promotion to a rank.

Quote from: Holding Pattern on February 20, 2020, 10:30:20 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on February 20, 2020, 09:28:52 PMWhy would "armed Forces" get different classes?

They have no more knowledge of CAP, per se, then anyone off the street. This idea that
people with military experience have some sort of force powers in regards to CAP
fails on inspection.

Same with dark-side cadets.  By far cadets have absolutely zero idea what it takes to run a squadron,
nor a clue how to lead adult volunteers. Every dark-sider I've ever dealt with walks in with a handful of
cadet-level "this is how we fix CAP" ideas to be greeted by a delicious reality sandwich.

Any training with value will be the same for everyone, and assume no one has a clue walking in, otherwise you're
just perpetuating the same issue.

I think his point there was to make sure that service members got the introduction to the CAP way vs the AF, Army, Navy, Coast Guard, or Marine way, regardless of service related promotion to a rank.

Correct,but even ex-Air Force included, because this is not the Air Force.

This solves the problem of the Ex-military person that doesn't want to learn CAP.  CAP gives a lot of PD credit for military PD courses.  I don't have a problem with this.  But it unfortunately eliminates the corporate side of the learning curve for these folks.

This methodology would include a path for the casual SM.  Minimal training, minimal advancement, but as much participation as desired.

But would also provide paths for the career CAP NCO and Officer.  I would make safety currency and unit/staff participation a requirement.  This participation could be logged by the member and approved by the Cdr.  Casuals wouldn't have to worry about this.

And being an E-4 doesn't necessarily mean you've had a lot of leadership exposure, especially in technical careers or if you haven't had much exposure to leadership training courses.

Senior military NCOs who join CAP may have the leadership exposure but not the CAP exposure; the same for military officers. Junior enlisted, particularly, will have a lot less.

The intent is to get everyone on the same page in CAP development because there are informative subject matter that need to be taught to everyone in the same fashion. Sure, maybe the level of experience differs, but not in the CAP knowledge concept. Being an Army O-4 doesn't teach you squat about CAP.

For those who maybe have had the exposure, is a refresher really going to hurt anyone?

My question isn't that they need it, they do, just that it should not be any different.

Everyone sits in the same class, civilian, E4 or General.