Civil Air Patrol Reserve

[Dragoon]

One positive would be that if you established minimum standards for a "Reserve" you could then RAISE the standards for full members.

For example, you could mandate meeting attendance for CAP officers and mandate they hold staff jobs.  If someone doesn't want to do that, then turn in the oak leaves and join the reserve.

We've set our bar awfully low in order to attract as many folks as possible.   This could be a way to raise that bar without alienating the masses.

[Major Carrales]

One positive would be that if you established minimum standards for a "Reserve" you could then RAISE the standards for full members.

For example, you could mandate meeting attendance for CAP officers and mandate they hold staff jobs.  If someone doesn't want to do that, then turn in the oak leaves and join the reserve.

We've set our bar awfully low in order to attract as many folks as possible.   This could be a way to raise that bar without alienating the masses.

We operate fine for what we are, persons serving while living a full time lives.  In units where people are working and building, then they need regular attendance.  Create a place where peopel can, "take the path of least resistance" and guess what we will have?

What people fail to realize here is that we are exisiting as we should.  People show up because they want to, those are the best kind.  Others are excused if "ife gets in the way," but when it comes down to it he standards are still there.  Each unit creates is own culture in its isolation.  There is no National Standard, some units meet weekly others monthly.  You can have a unit where everyone has a vision or you can have the sitautions you and Riveraux are describing. 

Why is it that some units are effective and others not?  It is based on the culture established.  If you are a Civil Air Patrol, USAF Auxiliary mindset of "Service Before Self," those that enter will conform to that.  If you are a group of people doing it "purely as a hobby," "Guys Night Out" or "for cheap flying alone," then that is the culture established.  A CAP Reserve Corps will not solve that, nor allow someone too busy for CAP activity to suddenly "be ready."

Regular attendance (be that one a week, twice and month or once a month) is the only way.  Having people who "attend CAP Christmas and Easter" and none of the rest smacks of the little red hen who gets no help all year in growing, cultivating, harvesting, milling and baking but gets plenty of takers when it is time to eat.  

Creating a CAP Reserve is a meaningless effort.  Why alter our standards to accomodate the lowest levels of participation?  Raising Standards unqually is more destructive than accross the bar.

So you can't attend meetings?  Attend when you can and do what you can based on that.  If a CAP Officer can only make it for regular attendance during the Summer, then take that time they are there to be most active.  When they can't return...read their name at the meeting, keep up with what they are doing, keep them informed of what the unit is doing and keep them a part of it.  Don't lie to all involved by having them show up once a year for some SARex while everyone else is busting a gut to get it done.

Again, there is not need to add this fifth and six wheel to this cart.

[RiverAux]

What are your motives for being so passionate about this?

Do you want to be one of these reservists?  Do you want to admminster this program in your Wing?

Already been a squadron commander and already have enough other CAP duties on my plate.  Sorry to burst your bubble, but I just happen to think it is a good idea, but thanks for getting personal about it. 

[Major Carrales]

What are your motives for being so passionate about this?

Do you want to be one of these reservists?  Do you want to admminster this program in your Wing?

Already been a squadron commander and already have enough other CAP duties on my plate.  Sorry to burst your bubble, but I just happen to think it is a good idea, but thanks for getting personal about it. 

No bubble to burst, and not to "get personnal."  I just want to know your motivation for taking this past three pages.  It sometimes helps me to understand and empathize with your position to know what you "feel" on the matter.  But since you seem to think that is somehow"getting personal" in a negative way, that may be more of your creation than mine.

After all you began this by stating...

I've been trying to figure out if there is any way to have some sort of effective "CAP Reserve" system in which people could join and after some initial training would primarily be expected to be participate in emergency services when needed and would not participate in meetings, CAP professional development, etc. 

People have told you that they believe there is no way to have some sort of effective "CAP Reserve" system.  You have failed to accept that only offering peacemeal replies and nothing that says "Hey, I am FOR this BECAUSE..."  The default answer, which most have gathered who are in oppositionto your plan, it "change for change sake."  The other position which is less than default is "he's trying to find a way to get "goldbrickers who never show up" into an aircraft or on to the field."

So, what is it?  Tell me, why you care about this?

[RiverAux]

I've said it numerous times throughout this thread that the primary purpose of having a Reserve system would be to increase the numbers of people available for use in ES.  If you don't like the proposal, thats fine by me.  This board is about discussing ideas -- if you don't like the idea, say so and leave it at that. 

[Dragoon]

Again, we've got members today who are willing to do certain things, but not lots of things.

We have the CFI who will do checkrides all day long, but doesn't want to attend meetings, hold any staff job, or do ES work.

We have the pilot who will do O rides at the drop of a hat, but other than that has no interest in CAP stuff.

We have the once a month (or less) AE or ML instructor.  Normally a dad or something. Willing to show up and teach the occasional class, but that's about it.

And we have the retired guy who is happy to go hunt ELTs (he's retired, dontcha know) but is pretty ambivalent about anything else.

These are all good people and we accommodate them today.  But I think they set a bad example.  If THEY can get away with not coming to meetings, why should I have to show up?


But what might be nice would be to recognize the contributions of these part-timers, but save more of the recognition for the guy who holds a staff job AND chaperones cadets AND shows up for every SAR, etc. etc.

We kind of handle that now - the part timers don't tend to get promoted.  But perhaps we would make it more formal.  Perhaps we could restrict the part timers from some CAP privileges (like grade, fer example.  Or making them wear some kind of "I'm just a part timer badge."  or restricting them to utility uniforms.)

This wouldn't be about accommodating the minimal contributer.  It would be about rewarding the folks who do most of the work.

Yup, what I'm suggesting is that a Reserve designation could be used as a motivator to get folks more involved.  "Sure, you can just do your little thing.  But understand you're officially a second CAP class citizen.  If you want full privileges, start coming to meetings and pitching in!"

So, we get you in the door to do a little.  Then we start reeling you in.......

This isn't exactly what RiverAux is aiming for, but I think it has merit. 

[RiverAux]

I'm not really sure that would gain us much of anything either.  The highly motivated people are already highly motivated and those less motivated would probably tend to be discouraged by something like this.  That is why I was approaching the Reserve concept as a voluntary option rather than something that "under-performers" would be forced into.  Personally, I think there probably should be some sort of specific attendence/participation requirements linked to senior member promotions, but that is a somewhat different issue.

[Major Carrales]

I've said it numerous times throughout this thread that the primary purpose of having a Reserve system would be to increase the numbers of people available for use in ES.  If you don't like the proposal, thats fine by me.  This board is about discussing ideas -- if you don't like the idea, say so and leave it at that. 

No, this board is to try to make ideas workable via discussion.  Several people have demonstrated that your idea is unworkable.  

Here are five plans that would better solve the problem than a CAP Reserve...

1) The CAP Station model where a small core/corps of CAP Officers meet in a town that is isolated from the main unit.  The group trains as its own unit, less than a flight, save for one meeting monthly in the main Squadron.  These people, since they are local, can deploy for ES, ELT searches and the like, in their town.  They, under the auspicies the Squadorn Commander, attend regular SARex activity.  They grow into a flight, and, if necessary, one day into a Squadron.

2) Realistic Mission Profile Expectations upon joining.  Some busy individual in a CAP heavy area wants to join butis limited on time.  This person, by definition, cannot attend regularly.  A unit Personnel Officer, or the OPS Officer, meets with the member and discusses REALITY.  The reality is the member cannot be a regular.  So, this pair would come up with a meeting schedule that could "take the new member as far as it could go."  This would be a realistic mission profile.

If there can be no solution, then CAP is not an option for them at that time.

3) The Status Quo, persons who cannot make regular attendance simply sit it out until they can.  Training comes as time allows.

4) SARex can be used for what they were meant to be, and Exercise and Training activity.  We spend a lot of time "Training for the Training."  Ideally a SARex should provide the necessary training from Start to Finish.  

Thus, instead of a CAP Reserve, a module be incorporated into the SARex itself where a person could attend "classes" on GES, OPSEC and the like on the first day; break off into classes in their "Track" on the second, and get a sortie on the third.

This would mean that people could be active and still "pay their dues."

SARexs would have to be more "regular."

5) All standards could be rolled back to preculde the necessity for GES, OPSEC, SAFETY BRIEFING and UNIT training.  Elimate the unit meeting altogether and replace it with the ALL SARex model.  Make it so easy any body can do it at anytime.


Five viable models that I offer as counter plans on the drop of a hat!

[jimmydeanno]

Yup, what I'm suggesting is that a Reserve designation could be used as a motivator to get folks more involved.  "Sure, you can just do your little thing.  But understand you're officially a second CAP class citizen.  If you want full privileges, start coming to meetings and pitching in!"

Boy, I think I'd hate to be a member of CAP, especially if I was a "fat & fuzzy" reservist.  YAY! More segregation ideas!

[Dragoon]

Yup, what I'm suggesting is that a Reserve designation could be used as a motivator to get folks more involved.  "Sure, you can just do your little thing.  But understand you're officially a second CAP class citizen.  If you want full privileges, start coming to meetings and pitching in!"

Boy, I think I'd hate to be a member of CAP, especially if I was a "fat & fuzzy" reservist.  YAY! More segregation ideas!

Unlike the old fat and fuzzy thing, the idea of "those who do the work get the bennies" ENCOURAGES folks to do more.  It ain't segregation if you have complete control of what category you're in.

Right now, you can get virtually all the bennies in CAP by doing very little.  I'm all for rewarding the ones carrying the weight.  It might encourage more to step up to the plate.  YMMV, of course.

[RiverAux]

Several people have demonstrated that your idea is unworkable.  

Actually, several people have ASSERTED that the idea is unworkable.  Nothing has been demonstrated by them (or me for that matter).  

The station model has serious potential problems of its own and is probably only really feasible in an Iowa-type system where you are having monthly weekend-long training meetings.  3 CAP members in an isolated town are not going to be able to do any sort of real training in their own meetings and they're not going to drive 2 hours to and from what essentially is a typical CAP squadron meeting once a month, but may go to a Wing Training or Group Training assembly where they've got the chance to get some real work done.  Otherwise I don't see them continuing to operate as a station (of less than flight size) on a continuing basis.  
But, I wouldn't rule out the station idea completely and wouldn't have a problem testing it in a few places as well.  It might work.  

I wouldn't disagree that having some classroom training associated with SAREXs could help.  Our wing has done it on occassion with mixed success.  

I never said that this was the answer to all our problems, but CAP does have to recognize that fewer Americans are interested in volunteering their time in our type of organization.  The average American who volunteers, only volunteers about 40-50 hours a year and we ask a lot more than that.  

We have increased the professionalism of our ES force but that comes at a cost.  Just ask any volunteer fire department out there.  I don't suggest we drop any of our ES standards, but we have to be willing to explore ideas that might require adjustments in other aspects of our senior program in order to maintain our ES capabilities.  

[Hawk200]

How would the administration for these people work?

Who is going to track them?

Who will be responsible for their training?

What kind of time schedule would they have to meet?

What happens if they don't show to required training?

How do you deal with behavioural issues?

What kind of dues will they pay?

Those questions need to be answered before such a program is implemented. You need to address some legitimate issues of such a system and carry it a little further than "Gee, it would be nice if we had some people that could show up to a mission if I don't get many regulars."

[RiverAux]

No kidding.  I never pretended that this was a formal proposal that I would be presenting to the National Board.  Lots of things would need to be worked out.  Some of the items you asked about have already been discussed, but I'll do it again:
Tracking -- probably have a wing or group level reserve unit with an "active" commander.  Possibly have reservists attached to squadrons in which case they would be administered by the squadron.

Training -- probably group (if you have them) or wing.  Would have the opportunity to attend training classes (I would open them to everyone as long as we're doing them).  If they never achieve qualification in an ES specialty, I would not allow them to renew membership.  If ES qual lapes, I wouldn't renew their membership. 

Time schedule -- Besides the time to meet Level 1, OPSEC, etc. they would need to either attend SAREXs or missions to keep up their ES qualifications and I think a yearly training day or weekend for refresher classroom training on specialties, policies, procedures, etc.  No other meeting requirements. 

"Behavioral issues" -- not sure what you're talking about, but I'd treat them just like any other CAP members.  Follow the rules as written or get out. 

Dues -- As I said very early on, I would probably have them pay reduced dues.  If that was the case,  I wouldn't send them the Volunteer.  It is available electronically and if they wanted to see it, they could.  Keep in mind that I also proposed limiting their rank and professional development.  So they wouldn't be "getting" as much either. 

[Eclipse]

Tracking -- probably have a wing or group level reserve unit with an "active" commander.  Possibly have reservists attached to squadrons in which case they would be administered by the squadron.

NHQ just addressed this specifically and said "no". Wings were forced to retire their reserve squadrons and move members to either an inactive "000", (which are designated as non-operational), or an active unit.  In fact, I would say that is where the idea dies, because in fact many wings did maintain reserve units for years for members who didn't want to, or couldn't participate in a local unit, but were still active on some level.

Training -- probably group (if you have them) or wing.  Would have the opportunity to attend training classes (I would open them to everyone as long as we're doing them).  If they never achieve qualification in an ES specialty, I would not allow them to renew membership.  If ES qual lapses, I wouldn't renew their membership. 

Neither Groups nor wings are operational echelons, and should not be conducting training classes or other similar activities (that many do is not the point).  What you are essentially suggesting is making these people members of group or wing staff for the purposes of their training - that's a Squadron CC's job.  Group / wing is supposed to be more experienced members guiding and coordinating the activities of units and their members.

Time schedule -- Besides the time to meet Level 1, OPSEC, etc. they would need to either attend SAREXs or missions to keep up their ES qualifications and I think a yearly training day or weekend for refresher classroom training on specialties, policies, procedures, etc.  No other meeting requirements. 

So when do they get their 101's done, tasks certified, and other important things to make them functional? These non-trivial administration issues are what causes chaos today with "active" members.  Who's going to hand-hold the minutia of ES credentials for members who are so disconnected from CAP that they can't be bother to come to unit meetings?

"Behavioral issues" -- not sure what you're talking about, but I'd treat them just like any other CAP members.  Follow the rules as written or get out. 

Discipline of members is first and foremost the responsibility of a respective unit CC, the idea being that they take the time to groom members, and in turn its their fault if they act inappropriately.  Without the personal relationship local unit participation engenders, the ability to impact (or anticipate) attitudinal issues is lost. i.e. "I don't know you, so I don't care what you think, and BTW, I'm just a reservist anyway, so let me fly my sortie and go home."

River,  in your defense, you're trying to flesh out a program here without much forethought in direct reaction to people's negative comments,  but I'm sorry, this is an answer to a question that doesn't exist, and serves no purpose to the end your are seeking.

I think creative answers to our problems are needed, and each wing should address their specific problems.  If Iowa's solution works for them and increases their readiness, great for them, but let's not assume we can all work like them (or that the Iowa model doesn't work there because it doesn't scale well).

The reservist idea, though, is a dog of a different color in two hands of the bush that won't fly while hunting....

[RiverAux]

NHQ just addressed this specifically and said "no". Wings were forced to retire their reserve squadrons and move members to either an inactive "000", (which are designated as non-operational), or an active unit.  In fact, I would say that is where the idea dies, because in fact many wings did maintain reserve units for years for members who didn't want to, or couldn't participate in a local unit, but were still active on some level.

I've never heard of a "reserve" unit that wasn't the 000 unit every wing has before.  Commonly known as the ghost squadron.  Some renamed them "reserve" because they thought it sounded better, but they were still the ghost squadrons. 

Besides, what I'm proposing would already require some regulation changes, and setting up Reserve units would just be one more. 

Neither Groups nor wings are operational echelons, and should not be conducting training classes or other similar activities (that many do is not the point). 

Boy, thats news to me.   Commanders at all levels are responsible for training their people.  Ideally most would be done at the squadron level but this is not always possible given that very few people in any single unit need the same exact training at the same exact time. 

So when do they get their 101's done, tasks certified, and other important things to make them functional? These non-trivial administration issues are what causes chaos today with "active" members.  Who's going to hand-hold the minutia of ES credentials for members who are so disconnected from CAP that they can't be bother to come to unit meetings?

The commander of the reserve squadron would be the one overseeing those things.  FYI, I don't see any need for a typical squadron staff for reserve squadrons and a very much reduced org chart would be needed for those units. 

[RogueLeader]

Neither Groups nor wings are operational echelons, and should not be conducting training classes or other similar activities (that many do is not the point).  What you are essentially suggesting is making these people members of group or wing staff for the purposes of their training - that's a Squadron CC's job.  Group / wing is supposed to be more experienced members guiding and coordinating the activities of units and their members.

That is exactly what Iowa is going to.  In IAWG, the Wing is the ONLY Operational unit.  All Missions have to be approved.  While what you say is the way it should be going, that is not what is being done.  When a Mission is activated, personnel are drawn form the Squadrons into an Operational unit.  Say an ELT goes off around Waterloo IA, members from Dubuque, East Iowa Cadet and Cedar Rapids will be deployed as an IAWG CAP force.*

I don't know how the IAWG Model will spread, but that seems to be the future

*IIRC, CPG or ISU, feel free to correct me.  Been a little while. . .

[Eclipse]

^Many wings had units other than triple-zeros' for semi-active members.  They were subject to SUI's but were not being inspected. The wing cc's were told to retire them, or prepare for inspection.

Groups and wings are there for unit oversight, not operational activity.  Many coordinate training to share resources and avoid duplication of effort, but they should not be having a weekly meeting to show their people how to use a compass. A group staffer's job is to be overseeing the respective program he is in charge of and visiting units to insure they are meeting the group CC's expectations and to provide for resources the groups may need.  Group staffers who remain active in ES, as most do, should be participating in unit training activities as an >extra< activity to their group staff jobs.

Any unit which contains active members will be subject to the same rules for SUI and finance operations as any other unit (that's the point of the 000's, they aren't), which means a fair number of staff, not to men tion the logistical nightmares of coordinating people all over the state who again, for the most part, can't be bothered to just join a local unit.

[RiverAux]

Keep in mind that squadrons really aren't operational units either when it comes right down to it. Who gives the training matters less than the fact that it is being given in the first place. 

I'd like to know the Wings and squadron names of these "reserve" units of which you speak and when they were shut down.  Thanks.

[Eclipse]

PM sent...

[lordmonar]

Just because some wings operate at the squadron level....not all do nor do they have to.

I know that 90% of the CAP units out there can't operate on their own...they just do not have enough people to do all the jobs that need to be done.

For example a Fosset type mission.

Granted 99% of our missions are single asset mission but what Iowa is doing in not necessarily a step in the wrong direction. 

It does not mean every wing has to do it Iowa's way....but there is nothing really wrong with what Iowa is doing.

Here in Southern Nevada we operate as a defacto group when it comes to SAREXs and larger missions and we it that way because it works.