Did anyone notice that there is also a proposal to reintroduce the NCO grades to CAP? Not just for former NCO but for any new members. Hopefully this will result in meeting more requirements for CAP 2LT than 6 months and completion of the online courses.
QuoteDid anyone notice that there is also a proposal to reintroduce the NCO grades to CAP? Not just for former NCO but for any new members. Hopefully this will result in meeting more requirements for CAP 2LT than 6 months and completion of the online courses.
actually I am hoping this means that we will look at officer grades meeting reuirements similar to that of "commisioning" of military officers....ie college degrees for officers, non degrees = NCO's (yes I know there are a few nuiances there...ie NG will give a commision in some cases for an associates degree with promotion up to O-3)
mk
I hope this NCO program is something than can help the CAP improve its officer corps. We need it.
When I think what I, and others, had to endure to wear the gold bar of a 2nd Lt., and then I consider what a CAP member has to endure to earn the same privilege, I find a serious disconnect there!
Even under some kind of NCO system, CAP would likely still make all pilots at least 2Lts. It is also unlikely to require folks to turn in their bars and leaves.
So it seems to me to pretty much be a 1/2 measure.
Unless we are also talking about restructuring the officer corps, creating an NCO corps seems silly.
Quote from: cnitas on October 25, 2007, 03:02:08 PM
Even under some kind of NCO system, CAP would likely still make all pilots at least 2Lts. It is also unlikely to require folks to turn in their bars and leaves.
So it seems to me to pretty much be a 1/2 measure.
Unless we are also talking about restructuring the officer corps, creating an NCO corps seems silly to me.
Lets do it then.
Make pilots Flight Officers.
Quote from: sarmed1 on October 25, 2007, 01:21:22 PM
QuoteDid anyone notice that there is also a proposal to reintroduce the NCO grades to CAP? Not just for former NCO but for any new members. Hopefully this will result in meeting more requirements for CAP 2LT than 6 months and completion of the online courses.
actually I am hoping this means that we will look at officer grades meeting reuirements similar to that of "commisioning" of military officers....ie college degrees for officers, non degrees = NCO's (yes I know there are a few nuiances there...ie NG will give a commision in some cases for an associates degree with promotion up to O-3)
mk
Well, I'm hoping they'll bury this proposal, again, and stop digging it up.
No one - including TP or the Chief - has ever said what problem(s) the application of "Magic NCO Pixie Dust" is meant to solve, much less how it will solve it.
In the AF, the system (in overly broad terms, I admit) is simple: officers decide what, NCO's decide how, and Airmen do. However, in CAP we'll have no Airmen so we'll end up with officers doing and NCO's doing as well. We'll end up looking like Capt. Ben Ryan and SSgt Harry Fitz from "Project UFO" - doing the same job, just one calls the other "Sir."
I suppose this will make us more egalitarian: we'll now have "tofu Chiefs" to go along with our "tofu Lt Col's."
Quote from: JThemann on October 25, 2007, 03:08:58 PM
Lets do it then.
Make pilots Flight Officers.
Fine, but is that what is really on the agenda?
Quote from: cnitas on October 25, 2007, 03:02:08 PM
It is also unlikely to require folks to turn in their bars and leaves.
I also highly doubt they would do something like this. Even with a change in the officer program it would probably be instituted as the changes were in the CP when they added the Super NCO grades and changed the achievements - cadets being allowed to continue in the "old program" until the end of the phase or by a certain date.
I can't really make a determination on whether or not an NCO corps would even be of benefit to CAP without seeing what that portion of the PD program would entail or what their role would be in the program. So to "judge" for myself I think I'd need some of these questions answered.
1: What is the role of the NCO in CAP?
2: Who is the "new program" open to?
3: What is the criteria to become a CAP officer vs. NCO?
4: Do members flip-flop between the two depending on what their job/role is or can people flip between the two?
5: Would the PME options still be open to all our members? ie; SOS, ACSC, AWC or would the other options be available SNCOA, etc.
6: How would the "newly discussed PME equivelents" transfer over from the CP?
7: Who do the NCOs "oversee?"
I am very interested in the prospect of this type of program but would need to see details to give an actual opinion. My only hope is that the re-introduction isn't a half thought out program with nothing to support it when it rolls out (courses, program outlines, etc).
Quote from: jimmydeanno on October 25, 2007, 03:20:17 PM
My only hope is that the re-introduction isn't a half thought out program with nothing to support it when it rolls out (courses, program outlines, etc).
Been in CAP long??
Quote from: cnitas on October 25, 2007, 03:02:08 PM
Unless we are also talking about restructuring the officer corps, creating an NCO corps seems silly.
There already IS a CAP NCO corps. All we are asking is that it be formalized and we have an opportunity for promotion like other senior members.
-SeattleSarge
Quote from: cnitas on October 25, 2007, 03:16:44 PM
Quote from: JThemann on October 25, 2007, 03:08:58 PM
Lets do it then.
Make pilots Flight Officers.
Fine, but is that what is really on the agenda?
AGENDA ITEM - 14 ED Action
SUBJECT: CAP NCO Corps
GLR/CC – Col Carr
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
In May 2007, the National Commander appointed a working group to investigate the
possibility of developing a viable NCO corps within the senior member program. The
group has been researching a number of issues that affect the ability of NCOs to
become a more meaningful part of Civil Air Patrol. While current regulations allow
former military NCOs to retain their NCO grade in CAP, there are no provisions for
these members to earn any further promotions. In order to attract qualified former
NCOs to the program, we need a mechanism to allow them to progress in the program
in the same manner as the senior member officers. The ability to earn future
promotions would be the first step toward fully integrating the NCO grades into the
overall structure of the organization.
Additionally, some new members do not wish to obtain officer grades or are better
suited to the NCO corps. Currently, this is not an option unless these individuals have
previously served as enlisted members of the Armed Forces. The ability to bring new
members in at the enlisted grades appears to be the next step toward developing a fully
functioning NCO corps.
Since the Air Force has retained control of the CAP grade structure, it will be necessary
to request their approval to change the current NCO grade restrictions; however, this
cannot be done until specific criteria have been established.
PROPOSED NEC ACTION:
That the National Executive Committee vote to approve the concept of future
promotions for former military NCOs; task the working group to develop promotion
criteria for each grade, and present a proposal to the May 2008 NEC.
Also, approve the working group to consider concept of individuals without prior military
service being eligible for promotion to NCO grades. The working group is to develop a
program for these individuals to earn NCO grades through CAP participation and
training. This plan should be presented to the summer 2008 National Board for
consideration.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
To be determined.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS' COMMENTS:
The NHQ staff provided assistance to the initial NCO Working Group and will continue
to provide support as necessary.
Quote from: SeattleSarge on October 25, 2007, 04:13:39 PM
Quote from: cnitas on October 25, 2007, 03:02:08 PM
Unless we are also talking about restructuring the officer corps, creating an NCO corps seems silly.
There already IS a CAP NCO corps. All we are asking is that it be formalized and we have an opportunity for promotion like other senior members.
-SeattleSarge
No, there is no "CAP NCO Corps" - there are RM NCO's that are allowed to keep wearing stripes in CAP in exchange for not promoting, except in concert with RM NCO promotions.
Again, there is nothing stating what NCO's can or can't do in CAP. We don't need an "CAP NCO Corps" if it's only purpose is to allow NCO's to promote outside of the RM or create non-prior service NCO's. We are too small to inflict the Officer/NCO split culture on ourselves.
I think a better question is with a BOG, an NEC and the NB, do we really need three levels of management to efficiently run CAP? The National Board has to be one of the most unwieldy ways to run a corporation around, it is hard enough to get a 11 member finance committee to reach agreement much less a 60+ member board with competing agenda's.
Quote from: cnitas on October 25, 2007, 03:39:26 PM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on October 25, 2007, 03:20:17 PM
My only hope is that the re-introduction isn't a half thought out program with nothing to support it when it rolls out (courses, program outlines, etc).
Been in CAP long??
I always leave room for hope :)
split topic NEC Meeting -Cadet rep (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3356.0) from CAP NCOs.
So what we are talking about is making a way for people to wear different symbols on their uniform. You have got to be kidding me. An NCO Corps? So does that mean NCOs cant be pilots? Or command Squadrons? maybe our C-182 can have a CAP NCO Crew Chief and we'll put his name on the plane. Is each Sq going to have a Senior Member 1st Sgt?
If prior service NCOs want to promote let them change over and promote within the current system. They knew they couldnt promote when they became CAP NCO's. If the Senior enlisted want to promote there is an avenue in place, its called the military promotion system.
Some of you want to be military officers so bad you can hardly stand it. OCS, National Guard Commissions, CAP Officers having degrees with an NCO Corps under you. Get over yourselves and go buy a Corvette for your mid life crisis or for those of you who did serve, go back into the Reserves. CAP doesnt even have a structured Officer Corps. It doesnt matter what rank you are in CAP and it never has. My 15 years in CAP Ive never seen Seniors give any weight to rank....its their position and their expertise. We arent the military and we will never have that culture as a part time volunteer organization. Having non military CAP enlisted members defeats the purpose because they arent going to be NCOs. They are going to be Senior members performing the same duties right along with CAP officers. The only difference in the symbol on their uniform. Lets call it like it is. Its a recruiting tool.
If any of you really think CAP has the capacity to have a Separate NCO and Officer Corps your living in a dream world.
Quote from: SeattleSarge on October 25, 2007, 04:13:39 PM
Quote from: cnitas on October 25, 2007, 03:02:08 PM
Unless we are also talking about restructuring the officer corps, creating an NCO corps seems silly.
There already IS a CAP NCO corps. All we are asking is that it be formalized and we have an opportunity for promotion like other senior members.
-SeattleSarge
Sorry, no there isn't.
What we have today are current and former members of the RealMilitary® who have chosen not to accept
an appointment as a CAP officer. Nothing more, nothing less.
There is no progression, professional development, or duties specifically open or restricted from a member who falls into this category.
Members who do not choose appointed CAP grade have no more, or less standing than any other member.
If you consider that an "NCO corps", well there you go.
There is also the issue of the "caste" system of NCO's vs. Officers.
No one who has served in the RealMilitary® can deny it exists -
Enlisted personnel tend to be from a pool of less >formal< educated, working class people doing technical, hands on work.
Officers, by design, are college-educated, manager / generalists, more concerned with a larger scope than a specific task or specialty.
This is a generalization, I know, and there are plenty of exceptions, especially in the area of combat pilots,
and very technical fields, etc., but it holds true enough for conversation. In many cases the exceptions are addressed by Warrant officers.
My point here is that in a volunteer organization like CAP, the above separation of duties does not exist, never will, and can't without a WHOLE LOT more people.
We've already got "pilots vs. ground", "cadets vs. seniors", and "GOB's vs. the new New Garde" - the last thing we need is a further divisive caste system of "Enlisted vs. Officers", put in place to basically stoke some misguided egos or "fix" problems related to leadership in a volunteer organization.
I offer general respect to anyone who walks in the door with an arm full of stripes, that means you will know how to wear a uniform, how a paramilitary structure works, how the chain of command works, and
have likely flourished in high-stress environments with "less-than-motivated" people under your command,
but after a few meetings those stripes may work against you if you can't get with >our< program, and you think the stripes (or bars, or stars) actually mean anything to CAP operations.
What I need are people willing to learn, teach, and show up. Everything else comes from there.
We have bigger problems than what is on our shoulders, people - I would be more in favor of doing away with the rank structure entirely than adding more complexity to it.
People join CAP for the activities and the public service aspect - the paramilitary structure is a plus for most, but also gravy. I'll find people just as fast without the extra weight of the grade on my collar.
I don't have a college degree, and I am FOR the addition of an NCO program.
I would even latterally move my own O4 grade over!
-Ace
So, instead of "Join CAP and become a Lt Col - not that it matters"....
it'll be
"Join CAP and become a Chief Master Sergeant - not that it matters"
In a way this makes sense - since rank doesn't matter, why not have NCOs for those that think stripes are prettier than oak leaves?
And while we're at it, can we add warrant officers? How about naval ranks? Can I be a Master Gunnery Sergeant? After all, it's just about what title or insignia you think is cooler. The job is exactly the same.
Seriously, more and more I'm thinking the way to go is to strip CAP entirely of the military grade structure and use some CAP specific grades. That would eliminate all the comparisions, posturing and endless threads about being "real officers." Which we're not. And truthfully, I'm not sure we need to be.
If you think the arguments about us acting like military officers is comical just wait until we have a non- prior military CAP Chief Master Sgt walking around base.
And there it goes again, we're not "real" officers, because we don't have commisions. Maybe we don't do any real work because we're not actual military. My CAP timeclock would beg to differ.
NCO Corps? Why not? The only thing we have to be really concerned with is whether or not these new CAP specific NCO's are utilized properly, and not just new ranks to have.
Second, is this about an NCO corps, or an
enlisted corps? I can imagine that there would a few "real" military NCO's that might get up in arms if someone comes in as a slicksleeve and promotes to a Staff Sergeant six months later. If they want to start at the bottom, I'd be a little more supportive of the program. But straight to NCO stripes? I think that's improper.
I personally don't have a problem with a promotion method for CAP NCO's. At present, current and former military officers can do it, but NCO's can't. A little inequitable.
Stripping CAP of miltary culture is a sure way to kill what it is. There are other organizations that have military trappings, but no military commissions. There's nothing wrong with having officers that aren't commisioned. It's rank that shows experience, that's all. Anyone concerned about having a commision so they can boss around enlisted isn't really here for the right reasons. Stripping officer ranks won't really change them.
Just want to be a flying club? There's plenty around. No reason to tank CAP to create one.
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 25, 2007, 08:46:26 PMIf you think the arguments about us acting like military officers is comical just wait until we have a non- prior military CAP Chief Master Sgt walking around base.
Hopefully, that won't be an issue. If they do create an NCO corps, I hope it caps off at Master or Senior. We cap at LTC on the officer side, an NCO side should have caps too.
I do feel that if we do create an NCO corps, we need distinctive CAP NCO insignia. We can't wear blue epaulets on our blues, our own CAP NCO's need something distinctive as well.
I'm keeping an open mind on this issue.
I personally think this will be an avenue for volunteers who are valuable, but not up to the quality needed to wear military officer rank.
Yes, I'm sure I will be called an elitist, but I had to earn an officer commission, had to have a bachelor degree, and had to undergo an intense training program. This was after achieving SSG rank in the Army. Not everybody can do it, we lost more than half of our original OCS class between the first formation and graduation. We lost one between the first formation and lunch.
That being said, I really find it odd that in CAP a guy with a GED who works as a fender-polisher at the Kwik-Kleen Kar Wash is a lieutenant if he can stay awake through a video on how to salute.
I see this as a way of improving the image of the CAP officer corps, if nothing else. We can impose some higher standards, and we will still be able to accept Mr. Kwik-Kleen as an enlisted volunteer.
Quote from: SeattleSarge on October 25, 2007, 04:13:39 PM
Quote from: cnitas on October 25, 2007, 03:02:08 PM
Unless we are also talking about restructuring the officer corps, creating an NCO corps seems silly.
There already IS a CAP NCO corps. All we are asking is that it be formalized and we have an opportunity for promotion like other senior members.
-SeattleSarge
Yeah, a Corps that numbers under a hundred, if that many.
A Corps that no one knows what to do with.
A Corps where it's members are restricted from some duties such as Tactical Officers (gasp!!!, can't have an "officer" working for an NCO!).
You come up with a "workable" plan to use NCO's and you might just have something.
But all I've seen from the Chief is nothing but eyewash, if that.
And yes, I did the NCO thing for a couple of years and gave it up because of the hassles.
It is odd how we have stumbled our way into this situation where to be a CAP NCO you must have had to be one in the military while anyone can become an officer.
Quote from: PHall on October 25, 2007, 11:59:15 PM
A Corps where it's members are restricted from some duties such as Tactical Officers (gasp!!!, can't have an "officer" working for an NCO!).
I assume you're being factitious - there are no restrictions based on grade in CAP.
Edit: Corrected typo.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 26, 2007, 12:31:29 AM
Quote from: PHall on October 25, 2007, 11:59:15 PM
A Corps where it's members are restricted from some duties such as Tactical Officers (gasp!!!, can't have an "officer" working for an NCO!).
I assume you're being factitious - there are no restrictions on based on grade in CAP.
Which do you mean, Bob?
fac·ti·tious
ADJECTIVE:
Produced artificially rather than by a natural process.
Lacking authenticity or genuineness; sham: speculators responsible for the factitious value of some stocks.
or
fa·ce·tious
ADJECTIVE:
Playfully jocular; humorous: facetious remarks.
Number 2.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 26, 2007, 12:31:29 AM
Quote from: PHall on October 25, 2007, 11:59:15 PM
A Corps where it's members are restricted from some duties such as Tactical Officers (gasp!!!, can't have an "officer" working for an NCO!).
I assume you're being factitious - there are no restrictions based on grade in CAP.
Edit: Corrected typo.
No I'm not.
Did an Encampment as a Primary Tactical Officer as a MSgt and my Assistant was a 1st Lt.
The Assistant didn't have a problem with it at all (former cadet who I had worked with since their Basic Encampment).
Some of the "powers that be" had a real problem with a "officer" working for an NCO.
Personally I think that all senior NCO's should have a pet Lieutenant or two. ;D
So I decided to "take one for the team" and revert back to my CAP Lt Col grade just to end the hassles.
((*sigh*))
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever this is true, and you probably did the right thing in not pushing it because they are way bigger fish to fry, however whomever made an issue of it obviously needs to:
A: Have a refresher course in what CAP is, and is >not<.
B: Get over themselves.
My Lord (not YOU Lord), the things we make an issue of, no wonder we've got problems.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 25, 2007, 11:23:53 PM
I'm keeping an open mind on this issue.
I personally think this will be an avenue for volunteers who are valuable, but not up to the quality needed to wear military officer rank.
Yes, I'm sure I will be called an elitist, but I had to earn an officer commission, had to have a bachelor degree, and had to undergo an intense training program. This was after achieving SSG rank in the Army. Not everybody can do it, we lost more than half of our original OCS class between the first formation and graduation. We lost one between the first formation and lunch.
That being said, I really find it odd that in CAP a guy with a GED who works as a fender-polisher at the Kwik-Kleen Kar Wash is a lieutenant if he can stay awake through a video on how to salute.
I see this as a way of improving the image of the CAP officer corps, if nothing else. We can impose some higher standards, and we will still be able to accept Mr. Kwik-Kleen as an enlisted volunteer.
It's an interesting idea, and I see your point. But I don't think it will fly.
For example, let's say they decide to require college degrees for officers, and if you don't have one you're an NCO.
First, real NCOs with college degrees complain that now the NCO corps is just the "not good enough to be officers" corps. In other words, the special ed class.
Second, does that mean pilots without college degrees are sergeants? Not something USAF has done in quite some time.
Third, does that mean that a Wing Commander without a college degree is just a Chief?
I think the only way having officers and NCOs in CAP is to decide on jobs. Restrict certain jobs to NCOs and certain jobs to officers. That way we have some kind of reason to have both.
But this won't work - because a unit is gonna work with the folks it has. Can't just requisition an NCO to fill your transportation sergeant billet. Some CAP major is gonna end up filling it. And if a unit has nothing but NCOs, one of them is gonna be the commander, regardless of what's on his sleeves.
The proposal says "Additionally, some new members do not wish to obtain officer grades or are better
suited to the NCO corps. "
Okay, what does that mean "better suited to the NCO corps?" If we had some freakin' idea of what the JOB of the NCO corps was, this would make more sense. But since it has no job, no assigned exclusive functions,I think it ends up meaning "doesn't have the social skills to act like an officer." Which is NOT a good criteria to set up a separate grade structure.
Quote from: PHall on October 26, 2007, 01:31:43 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 26, 2007, 12:31:29 AM
Quote from: PHall on October 25, 2007, 11:59:15 PM
A Corps where it's members are restricted from some duties such as Tactical Officers (gasp!!!, can't have an "officer" working for an NCO!).
I assume you're being factitious - there are no restrictions based on grade in CAP.
Edit: Corrected typo.
No I'm not.
Did an Encampment as a Primary Tactical Officer as a MSgt and my Assistant was a 1st Lt.
The Assistant didn't have a problem with it at all (former cadet who I had worked with since their Basic Encampment).
Some of the "powers that be" had a real problem with a "officer" working for an NCO.
Personally I think that all senior NCO's should have a pet Lieutenant or two. ;D
So I decided to "take one for the team" and revert back to my CAP Lt Col grade just to end the hassles.
That's what happens in the Armed Forces. A Lieutenant fresh out of OCS quickly makes nice with a seasoned NCO and learns from him/her. The worst thing an Officer can do is to ignore the experience of an NCO.
You could try it the way the cadets do...start at AB and work through to Lt Col. It would change the 5 levels to 13 levels (no we don't need ribbons for them all :) so don't even think about the uniform accessory discussion). Put say 1 year between the "enlisted" grades (8yrs to chief) and 2 between the officer ones (8yrs from 2d Lt - Lt Col).
This would eliminate the segregation based on education or skills and provide promotion opportunities to individuals based on their skill IN CAP. Throw a few promotion readiness evals and some schools in there and WHAMO, people get training, etc.
Education type stuff in CAP can then be more spread out and people aren't going to expect much from a CAP Amn because in the eyes of the AF and CAP Amn have little experience.
Educational "requirements" could then be modified to more closely match AF reqs.
To become an CAP Amn you need to complete CAP "Basic Training" a weekend course like SLS.
To become a CAP SSgt you need to complete CAP ALS which would be a weekend course to learn how to manage small teams and be a low level staff assistant.
To become a CAP MSgt you need to complete CAP SNCO Academy which would cover how to manage bigger teams, etc.
To become a CAP 2d Lt you need to complete CAP OCS which acclimates you to the differences between "officers and NCOs" and more "management" aspects of CAP - low level CAP Officer staff assignments and such.
To become a CAP Capt you'd complete CAP SOS. (RSC equivalent)
To become a CAP Lt Col you'd complete CAP ACSC (NSC equivalent)
It may take a little while to develop, but then you could take into consideration prior service personnel, check off their equivalencies because they've already done "time in service" Then you have a 16 year Lt Col rather than a 9.
Just a beginning to a thought.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 26, 2007, 12:11:36 AM
It is odd how we have stumbled our way into this situation where to be a CAP NCO you must have had to be one in the military while anyone can become an officer.
That's easy - it's because we really didn't want NCO's.
We used to have both (before my time) but people didn't want to be second class citizens so they decided to go all officer.
The only reason we have NCO's is to accommodate prior service types who had useful skills but felt odd about being officers. We gave them the stripes but told them they couldn't progress - which worked OK. But we get this drumbeat of wanting to "fix the system" when I don't think it can be fixed.
Quote from: Dragoon on October 26, 2007, 01:16:02 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 25, 2007, 11:23:53 PM
I'm keeping an open mind on this issue.
I personally think this will be an avenue for volunteers who are valuable, but not up to the quality needed to wear military officer rank.
Yes, I'm sure I will be called an elitist, but I had to earn an officer commission, had to have a bachelor degree, and had to undergo an intense training program. This was after achieving SSG rank in the Army. Not everybody can do it, we lost more than half of our original OCS class between the first formation and graduation. We lost one between the first formation and lunch.
That being said, I really find it odd that in CAP a guy with a GED who works as a fender-polisher at the Kwik-Kleen Kar Wash is a lieutenant if he can stay awake through a video on how to salute.
I see this as a way of improving the image of the CAP officer corps, if nothing else. We can impose some higher standards, and we will still be able to accept Mr. Kwik-Kleen as an enlisted volunteer.
It's an interesting idea, and I see your point. But I don't think it will fly.
For example, let's say they decide to require college degrees for officers, and if you don't have one you're an NCO.
First, real NCOs with college degrees complain that now the NCO corps is just the "not good enough to be officers" corps. In other words, the special ed class.
Second, does that mean pilots without college degrees are sergeants? Not something USAF has done in quite some time.
Third, does that mean that a Wing Commander without a college degree is just a Chief?
I think the only way having officers and NCOs in CAP is to decide on jobs. Restrict certain jobs to NCOs and certain jobs to officers. That way we have some kind of reason to have both.
But this won't work - because a unit is gonna work with the folks it has. Can't just requisition an NCO to fill your transportation sergeant billet. Some CAP major is gonna end up filling it. And if a unit has nothing but NCOs, one of them is gonna be the commander, regardless of what's on his sleeves.
The proposal says "Additionally, some new members do not wish to obtain officer grades or are better
suited to the NCO corps. "
Okay, what does that mean "better suited to the NCO corps?" If we had some freakin' idea of what the JOB of the NCO corps was, this would make more sense. But since it has no job, no assigned exclusive functions,I think it ends up meaning "doesn't have the social skills to act like an officer." Which is NOT a good criteria to set up a separate grade structure.
Personally, I can't argue with you, Dragoon. You make some valid points. Like I said at the beginning of the last post, I'm keeping an open mind.
We do NOT know what form, or what jobs, this new enlisted-NCO thing will take. Discussing it seems to be a bit premature. But, just for speculation purposes, what would you say to this:
A person joining CAP is qualified for officer rank if he meets any of the following criteria:
1. An Associate or higher degree.
2. 2 years of college completed toward a Bachelor degree.
3. Private pilot rating or higher.
4. Completion of a post-secondary trade school course consisting of at least 1,000 clock hours.
Otherwise, the person joins as an enlisted person.
This would screen out the people who score pretty low on the accomplishment scale, but would not be unnecessarily exclusive or elitist.
While to many of us, CAP rank is just that, CAP rank.
I wonder how many of us feel that way because you can earn it with little challenge. (Now you can go the hard route, and do SOS and ACSC if you want...)
But, if you can not fall asleep at an SLS, CLC, RSC... and pay dues for X number of years, you can be a Lt Col.
I think we all know some Lt Cols that frankly have a hard time figuring out how buttons on their shirts work, and can't even speak or write in complete sentences.
While to many of us, we think it's no big deal, because to a point CAP grade is considered a joke. (Some of us thin otherwise mind you.)
But, it's those "officers" that make you wonder... also make many of our "customers" and the military wonder.
Most people in this organization agree that we need to find new missions, and possibly new customers... to survive. And, part of that selling point... is to have a professional image. And, having an officer corps that has more stringent standards COULD (could is emphasized) help with some of that image issue.
Why do you think companies spend so much on advertising and packaging. "Image is everything." And, we lose credibility with Lt Col Tentpeg who doesn't understand politics, interagency-operations, or verbs shows up and embarrasses us in front of the county sheriff. Lets face us, MOST of our customers or potential customers understand our rank system to a point. (Even if it is from TV...) And, if that is what we have for a Lt Col... what do we have for 1st Lts? (Hey... it has been asked....)
So, I could see how an enlisted corps COULD bring some credibility to our image with external customers. (Hey, it has to be implemented correctly... we all know that... what we don't know is what is correctly... and we probably all have different opinions on what that is.)
And, yes, there can be some issues with creating an enlisted corps for everyone... but... we also have problems with the current system.
Which one in the long run will be better for our organization?
John, I think those are great ideas and they seem very fair. However I would change the language up just a bit. I think it should read more like this:
1) an bachelors degree or higher from a regionally accredited college or university.
2) 60 college hrs or more from a regionally accredited university going towards a bachelors degree.
3) a private pilots license or higher with a minimum of 150hrs PIC or be qualified to be a transport mission pilot and pass the current CAPF-5.
4) a post secondary trade school consisting of a minimum of 1000 clock hrs approved by the Region commander.
I added in the words regionally accredited so as to keep someone with a non accredited degree or a degree that has non-recognised accreditation from qualifying. Unfortunately there are people out there who spend money on fake degrees and if you don't specify what level of accreditation is minimum then those people with the fake degree just might qualify. just because a school is "approved" by a state doesn't mean that they grant "real" recognised degrees.
As for the 1000 clock hours of post secondary trade school, I think you need someone other then a squadron commander to approve that program. it needs to a recognised post secondary trade school.
a private pilot who doesn't have at least 150hrs PIC (i think thats the number) really isn't qualified to perform any missions. at the very least I think the requirement should be high enough that they have to at least meet the transport mission pilot requirements before becoming an officer. a person becoming an officer under this requirement should be an active pilot and have a current CAPF-5. I don't think someone who had a pilots license 20 years ago and hasn't flown since should qualify.
I didn't see any indication in the NEC proposal that they were going to consider a wholesale change in senior rank system as you guys are talking about.
No River they didn't. but it is reasonable to to infer that with possibly adding an NCO corps for those without prior service they would have to raise the standards to become an Officer. That can only be a good thing with us having real world missions. If we where only a CP program then it wouldn't matter very much.
I agree with you TankerT...those are excellent points and ones that we sometimes fail to consider. Image isn't just important, it's everything and perception is reality! Some of us may not wish it was so but pretending that's not how the world works isn't going to change the facts any. We will only be as effective as our image and perception from the public allows.
It just keeps coming back to the basic fact that "CAP rank is CAP rank." That's fine, but we need to ditch the bars and oak leaves.
If our grade didn't look like the Real Military (TM), so many problems would just fade away. Nobody would be sweating things like grade inversion, the "not ready for oak leaf majors," how we work with the AF when CAP officers interface with AF enlisted.
The problem is we're all about the bling. There are too many CAP'ers who want to look like real officers and will bolt when we tried to take that away. The NB crowd want their eagles (and stars, if they can get them) and won't move on anything like this. The cries of "I _earned_ this!" will echo across the land.
In the end, it'll be "sit down, shut up, and pass the tofu oak leaves."
Not at al. They just mentioned allowing non-priors to become NCOs as an alternative, not a requirement. If it is just an alternative route for senior members, that doesn't mean that the primary route will change at all. The proposal is focused on NCOs only.
I am with those who see no real purpose for having NCOs in CAP under our current system. I think the very fact that there are very few of them now, despite having a lot of former NCOs in the organization, shows that most people eligible to become CAP NCOs agree.
Now, if the study group they're talking about appointing comes up with something useful for NCOs to do, then maybe I'll change my mind.
Quote from: ddelaney103 on October 26, 2007, 03:22:16 PM
It just keeps coming back to the basic fact that "CAP rank is CAP rank." That's fine, but we need to ditch the bars and oak leaves.
If our grade didn't look like the Real Military (TM), so many problems would just fade away. Nobody would be sweating things like grade inversion, the "not ready for oak leaf majors," how we work with the AF when CAP officers interface with AF enlisted.
The problem is we're all about the bling. There are too many CAP'ers who want to look like real officers and will bolt when we tried to take that away. The NB crowd want their eagles (and stars, if they can get them) and won't move on anything like this. The cries of "I _earned_ this!" will echo across the land.
In the end, it'll be "sit down, shut up, and pass the tofu oak leaves."
dd:
Your solution doesn't really address the root of the problem. If you have people acting the role of officers, whether you call them majors or directors, who are not qualified to act in that capacity, you lose the credibility of your supported entity. There are duties in CAP that can be handled by the guy with a GED who has never felt a need to improve himself. But to make that guy a Lt Col. diminishes the credibility of the USAF retired major who just got just promoted.
Making the under-achievers enlisted, and having an enlisted professional develoment program through which they can be promoted makes sense if only to improve the image of our officer corps.
I just do not get it....those that seem to want to do away with the rank and military structure because we are "volunteer" in nature.
Are the State Defense Forces Volunteer? How about the Coast Guard Aux? Yet they are way more stringent in their NCO/Officer ranks and understanding. Hell the SDF is Georgia requires you to go to their OCS course and be appointed as an officer! Again...100% volunteer, no paid people or contractual obligations, but stringent requirements.
Hell guys, the freaking Salvation Army has ranks!
We are a para-military organization that is also the official auxiliary of Mama Blue. Get over it and get on board with the ranks, and lets make them mean something.
Why is that so hard to grasp? If you do not like the military aspect, fine, there ARE volunteer SAR organizations that do not have rank or anything like that. Though you better stay away from the volunteer fire departments, they have rank too!
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 25, 2007, 11:23:53 PM
I'm keeping an open mind on this issue.
I personally think this will be an avenue for volunteers who are valuable, but not up to the quality needed to wear military officer rank.
Yes, I'm sure I will be called an elitist, but I had to earn an officer commission, had to have a bachelor degree, and had to undergo an intense training program. This was after achieving SSG rank in the Army. Not everybody can do it, we lost more than half of our original OCS class between the first formation and graduation. We lost one between the first formation and lunch.
That being said, I really find it odd that in CAP a guy with a GED who works as a fender-polisher at the Kwik-Kleen Kar Wash is a lieutenant if he can stay awake through a video on how to salute.
I see this as a way of improving the image of the CAP officer corps, if nothing else. We can impose some higher standards, and we will still be able to accept Mr. Kwik-Kleen as an enlisted volunteer.
Ditto X2
Point of order -- the CG Aux does not have ranks. Actually they use slightly military-style rank insignia, but use office titles to match the insignia.
The CG aux is a bad example. SDFs are a much better example. they are VERY much like CAP, but have only a State mission. Where we have BOTH a Federal and a State mission. in Texas, an officer in the State Guard must have a bachelors degree and meet ALL of the ANG or Air Force standards to be an Officer except for the age restriction up to a point. However, just because you meet all of those standards does not mean you will enter as an Officer. unless you have been an officer in the military you will start out in most cases as an E-5 for at least a year till you can become eligible to apply for a slot in OCS. They also go thru almost the same exact OCS that the ANG goes thru. Because of those tougher standards they work very well with their ANG counter-parts. All of the officers; no matter if you are TXSG or ANG you have all meet the same standards for being an Officer in most cases.
The State Guard is a very inclusive organization, they will take almost anyone who has a pulse as a member, they just restrict the Officer ranks to a much higher standard. Nothing wrong with that, it leads to much higher credibility. Thats something you can never have too much of.
The problem is that the bulk of Senior Members (and CAP in General) don't fit in either the Enlisted or Officer Bucket. And the real problem is that Mama Blue doesn't have Warrant Officers anymore.
Look, CAP should have a Three Track System, and the bulk of CAP members should be Warrant Officers. Furthermore, since the Mama Blue doesn't have Warrants anymore, its as if CAP did do away with "Military Rank"
Look at it like this:
CAP Warrant Program (Emergency Services): This track is for SM who desire to accomplish the CAP ES Mission who do not have a desire to follow the command track. (No desire to command squadron's, etc.) and under 21 SM's who wish to follow the Command & Staff Path
CAP Officer Program (Competitive Category): Staff & Command positions. If you don't do the job of an officer (Lead/Command) you don't get assimilated. After Command, if the Senior Member does not wish to continue on in the Command & Staff realm, they revert to their "permanent" WO rank.
CAP Officer Program (Specialist): Legal, Medical, Finance, Chaplain.
Enlisted Program: Basically Everyone Else.
Senior Member: Initial Rank (Unless qualified for anything else)
Senior Airman: Completion of Level 1/4 Months TIS
Staff Sergeant: 1 Year TIG/TIS
Tech Sergeant: 4 Years TIG/ 5 Years TIS
Master Sergeant: 5 Years TIG/ 10 Years TIS
Supergrade NCO's Reserved for Group/Wing/National Staff Positions.
Look this is just off the top of my head, but the idea is that the vast bulk of Senior Members would end up in the WO Ranks, flying missions, running the day to day ES Job of CAP.
CAP Officers would be restricted to those actually doing "Officer-like" jobs of running the CAP Organization.
CAP Enlisted would be for those who find their "happy place" of doing a job that they like that isn't covered elsewhere. There is no reason a really super ground team member who doesn't want to do anything else shouldn't be promoted. Conversely, there is no reason to have a MAJ or LT COL who doesn't do anything else.
I realize this isn't flushed out, nor does it cover every situation. But the basic premise is that a "CAP Commission" would be harder to get, based on pre-commissioning requirements, require a higher degree of commitment and sacrifice, and not continue unless you continued to contribute at that level.
And SDFs vary widely in how they approach that issue and it has changed over time. Some SDFs are pretty restrictive about ranks while others do tend to hand them out like candy and are worse than CAP in that regard. The trend is towards more restrictions.
The fact is that CAP could probably operate equally well in any rank system you'd care to develop. All are essentially meaingless so long as actual command and control is based upon administative position (squadron commander, etc.) or ES assignment (ground team leader, IC, etc.) and not on rank.
Falshrmjgr, Now it seems you are wanting a CG Aux type of system....."After Command, if the Senior Member does not wish to continue on in the Command & Staff realm, they revert to their "permanent" WO rank." that doesn't make any sense.
I think under the same type of system you suggested I believe most members would fall under the enlisted side of the house with Flight Officers being technical specialists such as Pilots, Paramedics, paralegals and moral leadership officers.
Officers would be those who hold higher educational accomplishments and have been selected to be an Officer and have completed an OCS, not necessarily only for those who choose to command.
You would end up with most members being enlisted, a few more who are Flight Officers based upon a technical skill/education and a few who are Officers.
Of course none of this would ever come to pass, the best way and most likely way is to simply strengthen the requirements to be an officer and for those who can't meet the standards or choose not to be officers can serve in the enlisted side.
Replying to a bunch of related stuff. First please understand I'm very pro military rank - but (and this is critical):
CAP doesn't actually have military rank. We use military rank INSIGNIA and TITLES, but we neglect the all important aspects of RESPONSIBLITY and AUTHORITYIn the real military you don't get promoted because of schools and time in grade. You get promoted because you're ready to take on more RESPONSIBLITY and AUTHORITY.
(there a couple of exceptions for folks like doctors, but percentage wise, they are not worth worrying about)
And once promoted, you don't have a choice about keeping your current job. You move UP to higher responsibility and authority. And you keep doing that until you leave the service.
In CAP, grade has no authority. It has no responsibility. And it does not tie you to performing at a certain level of either.
It's effectively just a title that says "this guy's been around a while and taken a little training." And that ain't what military rank should be about.
So, with that long winded beginning...
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 26, 2007, 03:50:09 PM
Your solution doesn't really address the root of the problem. If you have people acting the role of officers, whether you call them majors or directors, who are not qualified to act in that capacity, you lose the credibility of your supported entity. There are duties in CAP that can be handled by the guy with a GED who has never felt a need to improve himself. But to make that guy a Lt Col. diminishes the credibility of the USAF retired major who just got just promoted.
Making the under-achievers enlisted, and having an enlisted professional development program through which they can be promoted makes sense if only to improve the image of our officer corps.
John, I think you're linking rank to position in a way that CAP doesn't. Right now, we have many CAP officers who aren't that credible. But many of them are not in positions of authority. They have grade - but beyond that they aren't "acting as officers." Effectively, they don't need the grade because they are really acting as airmen!
What Dan is saying is that if there was no military grade, we'd only be worried about our "directors" acting like officers - we'd eliminate the need to worry about all the excess baggage "officers" who aren't in an position of authority (because no one in their right mind would give them one). And while our leaders aren't always the standard we'd like, being selected for positions of authority is a much better "quality cut" than just taking SLS...
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on October 26, 2007, 03:52:46 PM
I just do not get it....those that seem to want to do away with the rank and military structure because we are "volunteer" in nature.
Are the State Defense Forces Volunteer? How about the Coast Guard Aux? Yet they are way more stringent in their NCO/Officer ranks and understanding. Hell the SDF is Georgia requires you to go to their OCS course and be appointed as an officer! Again...100% volunteer, no paid people or contractual obligations, but stringent requirements.
Hell guys, the freaking Salvation Army has ranks!
We are a para-military organization that is also the official auxiliary of Mama Blue. Get over it and get on board with the ranks, and lets make them mean something.
Why is that so hard to grasp? If you do not like the military aspect, fine, there ARE volunteer SAR organizations that do not have rank or anything like that. Though you better stay away from the volunteer fire departments, they have rank too!
While there are some who think CAP should do away with grade so that we are less military, there are also those of us who think that CAP is currently bastardizing military grade so badly that it doesn't help us run an effective organization.
In other words, we truly aren't very military to begin with. And by pretending we are, we just cause more confusion.
The other organizations you mention tend to use rank a little bit better than we do.
The CG Aux requires you to serve in a position commensurate with the grade before you earn it. And, last time I checked, because they aren't real officers, they don't get the titles (ensign, Lt Commander) etc. Their title is their position title. Plus, there is no saluting amongst auxilarists. They seem to have embraced their "not completely military" status better than we have.
The Salvation Army limits officership to those members committing to full time paid service - and they fill the leadership roles. You can't just be one by taking classes and being a squadron asst AE officer.
I can't speak for all SDFs, but those I've seen link rank to position. You don't see an SDF Major hanging out in 2d squad, first platoon.
Basically we are misusing rank. We've divorced it of almost any connection to the officer's responsibility and authority. And for lots of reasons, I'm not sure we can fix that
Quote from: Falshrmjgr on October 26, 2007, 05:34:31 PM
The problem is that the bulk of Senior Members (and CAP in General) don't fit in either the Enlisted or Officer Bucket. And the real problem is that Mama Blue doesn't have Warrant Officers anymore.
Look, CAP should have a Three Track System, and the bulk of CAP members should be Warrant Officers. Furthermore, since the Mama Blue doesn't have Warrants anymore, its as if CAP did do away with "Military Rank"
Falshrmjgr, I think you're on the right track, but to take it further, such a system has no need for EMs or NCOs.
By using Warrant/Flight Officers for the vast majority of our members, we can have a military style structure that is unique from USAF, based on training and experience rather than position, and keeps us from having a two caste (officer vs. em) system. Everyone would be a CAP officer - with commissioned grade limited to those who need it for their job.
You got my point, Dragoon, sort of.
Yes, we have Lt Col's out there doing the work of airmen. That, in some cases, is called "Being all they can be."
But such an arrangement diminishes the rank of Lt Col for everyone else.
("CAP... oh yeah, I met one of their colonels once. A real dufus... lived in a trailer and worked at a car wash.")
By giving the people who are capable of airman's work airman's rank, and allow them to progress up through NCO rank with experience, we improve the credibility of the officer force. Nobody would find it funny that an A1C worked in a car wash.
This would be the case even if we totally abandoned military rank and went with a civilianized rank, unless you go with the USCG Aux where all of their ranks are too confusing to be understood. (Vice-Commander of the Rear Subsector Flotilla).
Quote from: Dragoon on October 26, 2007, 06:39:42 PM
Basically we are misusing rank. We've divorced it of almost any connection to the officer's responsibility and authority. And for lots of reasons, I'm not sure we can fix that
BINGO.... my point is, how COULD it be fixed, not "Is it likely?"
Falshrmjgr, I think you're on the right track, but to take it further, such a system has no need for EMs or NCOs.
Quote from: Dragoon on October 26, 2007, 06:39:42 PM
By using Warrant/Flight Officers for the vast majority of our members, we can have a military style structure that is unique from USAF, based on training and experience rather than position, and keeps us from having a two caste (officer vs. em) system. Everyone would be a CAP officer - with commissioned grade limited to those who need it for their job.
I guess I should give some perspective on my point of view. This is how I look at it:
We decided a long time ago that flying was a Gentleman's occupation, and the military got rid of "Flying Sergeants." However, traditionally, an Officer's first job was to LEAD and COMMAND. The problem is that their are plenty of officers who fly but do not lead or command anyone. The Air Force came to terms with this, and accepts that officers will eventually lead when they get promoted.
The Army, I think chose a better path. They compromised by having both flying officers and warrant officers. Disconnecting the leading and the flying. So here's where I stand:
Commanders at all levels should be officers, period.
Pilots who just want to fly, should be Warrant Officers. If they could to the point where they are leading, commission them appropriately.
Specialists should be officers. Doctors, Nurses and Physicians Assistants should be commissioned. An EMT should be a Staff Sergeant, a Paramedic a Technical Sergeant. Get the idea?
Ground Teams should be enlisted. Is is fair? Not really, but it mirrors the active military. Does that preclude an officer from leading a Ground Team? No, but that would be because he became an officer some other way.
What I would like to see is the distribution more reflective of the military. It makes us more credible, and it eases working together.
Unfortunately, there are those who have not served in the military who don't understand the complexity of the relationships between the ranks. Without this insight, it seems more disparate than it really is.
Example: 2LT's do not order around MSG's. They ask their advice. Senior Warrant Officers have more power often than anyone except the MOST senior officers.
The bottom line is this. When a gaggle of CAP officers walk into a room, military members have case of cognitive dissonance. The natural response is to figure that rank is meaningless and not credible. Furthermore, CAP members become so desensitized to senior rank, that we seem undisciplined.
The standard for most things military is this: Is it prejudicial to the good order, morale, and discipline of the unit?
I would argue that our current rank structure is exactly that.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 26, 2007, 06:49:46 PM
("CAP... oh yeah, I met one of their colonels once. A real dufus... lived in a trailer and worked at a car wash.")
Of course that also describes a recently divorced National Guard LT Col.... ;D
Ok Falshrmjgr, I do see your point. you made some sense on that last post and I agree with alot of what you had to say, you are on the right path. I would however disagree with paramedics being only TSgt, a paramedic these days is highly trained in emergency medicine and in Texas they are licensed. I would give them warrant officer rank. an EMT is just fine at SSgt and an EMT-I could be a TSgt.
I agree that CAP needs to have a better use of the rank/grade system. maybe we would become more palatable to the Air Force.
As always, arguing about the CAP rank system is a lot of fun but I have never seen one example of where our rank system is actually a real problem. Might a different system make more logical sense? Yes, but it would have absolutely 0 impact on anything we do. The rank "issue" is one of those sorts of things that would cause more heartburn and confusion if you tried to "fix" it than it would to just let things alone.
So it seems people are postulating three "career tracks" in CAP:
Officers - for the above average, college educated high-speed types.
Flight Officers - for pilots not fitting into the "Officer" category
Enlisted - for those who would be "an embarrassment" as officers.
The big problem (besides the totally patronizing attitude towards enlisted) will be recruiting:
RECRUITER: "So, Senior Master D - would you be interested in joining CAP's enlisted corps?"
SMS D (who has 2 associate degrees, 1 bachelor degree and a graduate certificate) "You mean the "no degree, working in a car wash, living in a trailer, 'short bus special'" category? Let me get back to you on that..."
You might be well on your way to setting up a chasm b/w officer and enlisted that even a Victorian-era British Army officer might consider "a little extreme."
Yup - no one wants to be on the "B Team"
Better to make everyone "Flight Officers." It gives the ego boost of being an "officer" without REALLY being an officer. The real military wouldn't care, as it's a CAP specific grade system.
And it avoids a caste system. Without salary as an incentive, we need to be more needful of ego-fufillment. Like it or not, it's a recruitment/retention tool. Sometimes that non-college graduate does more for CAP than that non-mission pilot who never even does O rides.....
It allows members to have a visible recognition of seniority/training without worrying about authority. If you've ever hung around Army flying warrants, you'll note that your grade isn't that much of a big deal - it's pretty a first name kinda culture. Just like CAP.
Then, if we must, we using commissioned grade for key leaders and staff. And we can be very picky about who gets it. And what they have to do to keep it. And then that grade could be a real symbol of authority and responsibility. As it should be.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 26, 2007, 08:11:43 PM
As always, arguing about the CAP rank system is a lot of fun but I have never seen one example of where our rank system is actually a real problem. Might a different system make more logical sense? Yes, but it would have absolutely 0 impact on anything we do. The rank "issue" is one of those sorts of things that would cause more heartburn and confusion if you tried to "fix" it than it would to just let things alone.
There is an advantage to a functioning rank structure. It makes it clear who is responsible for ensuring things are done correctly, safely and within regs whenever two or more units gather without a clearly appointed leader. This happens a lot in CAP.
Without a functioning rank structure, it's often unclear who has the authority to make decisions, and who will be held responsible if things aren't done correctly. I've seen this at air shows, two ground teams working together in the field, multi-squadron activities, etc. etc. The result is confusion, sometimes arguments, and potentially unsafe or unsat operations.
That said, a non-functioning rank system (like we've got) can actually adversely affect recruiting. I've lost a few Real Military guys who were rather turned off at our (and I quote) "Micky Mouse" rank system where you turn in your boxtops and make Lt Colonel.
For those members who were not around when CAP had enlisted grades. They were removed by the Air Force after the Sr. NCOs complained that CAP unit commanders were making Master Sergeants out of 18 year old members. Those members were going to encampments on base and entering the Sr. NCO clubs. If we want to have and enlisted membership we need to put in place a program that the Air Force would respect and accept.
1. A separate membership for enlisted members like the General Aviation Member (GAM) we had in the past.
2. Change the star that is used inside the Air Force Enlisted rank to a triangle with 3 prop propeller.
3. A training program with time in grade and time in service for non prior military personell.
4. Any non prior military personell would only be allow to wear corporate uniforms no AF uniforms.
After this has been completed then we could upgrade our officer staff to a more professional level.
This is just my opinion.
No rank structure will make any difference in 95% of CAP situations so long as rank is not at all linked to an actual position of authority in CAP. The only authority that matters, and will ever matter, in CAP is based on positional authority. If we were all enlisted, we would still end up with situations where a GTL was lower ranking than a GTM he is supervising. Due to the very nature of our organization, this will always be a factor unless you want to serverely limit our capabilities by always putting the highest ranking in charge of whatever activity is being done.
You are correct that for rank matter, it has to be linked to position.
ES will always be a little off, because a person's place in the institutional heirarchy (squadron, group, wing, etc) is not likely to be the same as their place in the current mission heirarchy (based on their current appointed ES job).
So....if we decide rank is worth having, and we're sick of it being just an award for sitting through some classes.
1. Make everyone flight officers, and make it clear that FO grade is a training award, and carries no specific responsibility or authority (80% of your problem cleared up right here)
2. Appoint temporary commissiond officers from among the qualfied (whatever that ends up meaning) to fill leadership billets. When you leave the job, you go back to your flight officer grade.
That way, the guys with the rank are the guys in charge. Simple.
Now, to keep things from getting too out of control, you link commissioned rank to both position AND training. A Level IV guy in the Wing Chief of Staff Job gets to be a Lt Col. A Level II guy in the same job only gets Captain. But as soon as he gets level III, he gets "promoted" to major as long as he's still in that job.
The only downside are those that want to hold the grade without actually doing the work. I've got no answer for that one.
I recently finished an 0-5 job. I'm now doing an 0-2 job. I'd have no problem with a "demotion." And if I ever decide to be just a pilot/GTL for a while, I'd be happy to revert to FO grade and salute the guys in charge.
Others, no doubt, feel differently.
Gonna roll these together....
Quote from: DrJbdm on October 26, 2007, 08:06:10 PM
Ok Falshrmjgr, I do see your point. you made some sense on that last post and I agree with alot of what you had to say, you are on the right path. I would however disagree with paramedics being only TSgt, a paramedic these days is highly trained in emergency medicine and in Texas they are licensed. I would give them warrant officer rank. an EMT is just fine at SSgt and an EMT-I could be a TSgt.
I agree that CAP needs to have a better use of the rank/grade system. maybe we would become more palatable to the Air Force.
Quote from: ddelaney103 on October 26, 2007, 08:15:52 PM
So it seems people are postulating three "career tracks" in CAP:
Officers - for the above average, college educated high-speed types.
Flight Officers - for pilots not fitting into the "Officer" category
Enlisted - for those who would be "an embarrassment" as officers.
The big problem (besides the totally patronizing attitude towards enlisted) will be recruiting:
RECRUITER: "So, Senior Master D - would you be interested in joining CAP's enlisted corps?"
SMS D (who has 2 associate degrees, 1 bachelor degree and a graduate certificate) "You mean the "no degree, working in a car wash, living in a trailer, 'short bus special'" category? Let me get back to you on that..."
You might be well on your way to setting up a chasm b/w officer and enlisted that even a Victorian-era British Army officer might consider "a little extreme."
Both of these are based on a disparagement of the NCO Corps in the military that is outdated at best.
Firstly, I can guarantee you that a Special Forces Trained Medical NCO (MOS 18D) is one of the most highly trained medical professionals in the world. On completion of training, most are promoted to Sergeant/E5. They are not only licensed paramedics, but trained in veterinary medicine, battle field surgery, as well how to equip train and lead a full company of indigenous fighters.
Secondly, I would challenge you to find a Senior NCO in any branch of service that feels "Patronized" by being a lowly NCO. In point of fact, NCO's are prized and valued by officers at all levels. It is no longer, and had not been for several decades, anything resembling the Victorian era British model.
NCO's are leaders, and experts at their craft. They are the backbone of any military, and are treated with as much, if nor more respect than most officers. Their role is different in that they work at the small unit level, and usually have longer longevity with a unit than an officer. They provide not only leadership and guidance, they provide the continuity of a unit, and are keepers of tradition, enforcers of standards, and the voice of common sense.
Take the Tech Sergeant example. A T/Sgt has been in the Air Force around a decade, is what the Marines would call a "Staff NCO" and is accorded much respect and responsibility. Anyone who thinks that being made a T/Sgt is an insult should have their head examined.
As far as being an "Embarassment," nothing could be further from the truth. No one in the military expects that a 2LT has got his head screwed on straight yet. A T/Sgt is expected to be knowledgeable, professional, and a subject matter expert.
[edit] In point of fact, why do you think so many prior military CHOOSE to wear NCO grade in CAP? Because they feel patronized? Or because they are extremely proud of their accomplishments and careers?
When you explain CAP to Army folks in Army-ese:
"All positions in CAP below Wing commander are grade-immaterial, and unit integrity is not an issue, since every mision generates a separate Task Force organization under a qualified Incident Commander. Units exist to provide command structure in support of individual training, and to provide a military structure to support the cadet training program."
The CAP picture becomes somewhat clearer.
If the decision was made to keep CAP as an all-officer force, I would support the idea of having both commissioned and flight officers for the same reason the Army does. Warrant officer pilots are worker bees, as are warrant officer CID special agents. We give them officer rank, but they are, basically, still just troops, albeit VERY highly specialized troops.
The decision, however, seems to have been made to have CAP as a mixed officer-enlisted force.
My mind is still open, and I still think the result will be improvement in the long term of the officer force.
The idea of non-service members wearing only corporate uniforms, no AF style uniforms on a scale of 1-10 is a zero. I can see it now, cadets turn 21 and say bye-bye to CAP. Retention would go through the floor. There have invested funds into the AF style uniforms now they have to buy all new uniforms. There may be as high as 5% of the cadets that would turn senior.
On another idea of demoting to flight officer positioins those not in command positions. Does that mean the National Commander goes from MG to FO at the end of his term? Or what about the LCol that went through ECI 13, SOS, ACSC and AWC. Or what about the FO that wants to take SOS? Sorry, but Air University requires Capt to take that course.
This whole thread is useless, the NB or NEC is NOT going to make any ideas brought up here on grade into a regulation. So many of these ideas sound fine until you look at a larger picture and see the problems these ideas would produce.
Quote from: Falshrmjgr on October 26, 2007, 07:22:30 PM
Pilots who just want to fly, should be Warrant Officers. If they could to the point where they are leading, commission them appropriately.
I'm a little confused about why everyone seems to be lumping pilots into the warrant officer category. IIRC, the only branch to do that is the Army, everyone else requires a college degree and officer status. It also seems odd that people want so many restrictions on officer status when the RM doesn't seem to have that many (you know, I could go to OCS tomorrow and be a RM officer, but would be stuck as a warrant officer in CAP)
And to bring things back to what is actually on the table.... is anyone but me interersted in what is actually on the table for discussion at the NEC?
QuoteSUBJECT: CAP NCO Corps
GLR/CC – Col Carr
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
In May 2007, the National Commander appointed a working group to investigate the possibility of developing a viable NCO corps within the senior member program. The group has been researching a number of issues that affect the ability of NCOs to become a more meaningful part of Civil Air Patrol. While current regulations allow former military NCOs to retain their NCO grade in CAP, there are no provisions for these members to earn any further promotions. In order to attract qualified former NCOs to the program, we need a mechanism to allow them to progress in the program in the same manner as the senior member officers. The ability to earn future promotions would be the first step toward fully integrating the NCO grades into the overall structure of the organization.
Additionally, some new members do not wish to obtain officer grades or are better suited to the NCO corps. Currently, this is not an option unless these individuals have previously served as enlisted members of the Armed Forces. The ability to bring new members in at the enlisted grades appears to be the next step toward developing a fully functioning NCO corps.
Since the Air Force has retained control of the CAP grade structure, it will be necessary to request their approval to change the current NCO grade restrictions; however, this cannot be done until specific criteria have been established.
PROPOSED NEC ACTION:
That the National Executive Committee vote to approve the concept of future promotions for former military NCOs; task the working group to develop promotion criteria for each grade, and present a proposal to the May 2008 NEC. Also, approve the working group to consider concept of individuals without prior military service being eligible for promotion to NCO grades. The working group is to develop a program for these individuals to earn NCO grades through CAP participation and training. This plan should be presented to the summer 2008 National Board for consideration.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
To be determined.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS' COMMENTS:
The NHQ staff provided assistance to the initial NCO Working Group and will continue to provide support as necessary.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS' COMMENTS:
Concur with action as drafted above.
DCS / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
To be presented.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 35-5, CAP Officer and NCO Promotions and Appointments
May I suggest we stick to that topic? Dig back into the archives and there are multiple threads focused on wholesale reorganization of the CAP rank system.
Well the bottom line is still:
Why do we need an NCO corps?
What will their duties be?
How will they progress?
How will they fit into our current structure?
I'll wait and see what the working group comes up with.
Quote from: alamrcn on October 25, 2007, 07:26:32 PM
I don't have a college degree, and I am FOR the addition of an NCO program.
I would even latterally move my own O4 grade over!
-Ace
Can't really move an O-4 laterally into an E grade... Lateral means equal. E anything is below O anything. Thus, the move would always be downward.
However, I too would become an NCO
IF that meant that I would become part of a system where most members are enlisted. Where members come in as Airmen unless they have college degrees and some leadership skills/training. That would mean that most of the work would be done by enlisted people while command authority would rest with officers who are very qualified to lead. Now... do I think we'll have enough officers to fill the ranks? Probably, if we restructure our units a bit. Truthfully, we only need 2-5 officers per squadron of 30-50 people. Having NCO's and SNCO's would keep the span of control proper while grade would finally mean something to us and outside agencies.
Pilots, lawyers, doctors, nurses and other professionals would receive an officer's grade, but would have to go through OTS, the way State Guard members go through OCS before being commissioned. Just because you're a professional, doesn't mean you shouldn't need to know how to be a leader. OTS would also be required for those who have a baccalaureate degree, but no leadership experience.
All of our missions would be fulfilled... Pilots would be officers, aircrew - mostly enlisted. Officers would be hard to come by, so recruiting would move become a priority, but... leadership of units will be handled by experienced and deserving people. Promotions for officers would be hard to come by after O-3. Promotions for enlisted would be difficult past E-7. All that would effectively strengthen our membership and organization through better personnel development and higher expectations. From that we'll gain confidence and proficiency. Many of our current problems will go away. Of course, there'll be new ones, but that's a challenge I think our members are able to face.
If those aren't met, I'm sticking to what I am... a meaningless Captain.
The average CAP squadron has about 30 people on paper and about 10-15 of those are already functionally "enlisted" (everybody always forgets cadets in this discussion). Probably half your seniors won't really be active anyway.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 27, 2007, 03:05:55 AM
The average CAP squadron has about 30 people on paper and about 10-15 of those are already functionally "enlisted" (everybody always forgets cadets in this discussion). Probably half your seniors won't really be active anyway.
Yup... turn small squadrons into flights with one officer (flight commander) in charge. The rest will be enlisted members preforming current tasks: training of cadets, ES, AE, and staff positions. Account for manning in a REAL way. We can't manage an organization effectively if we don't know what or who we're managing, right? Advise your commanders on ACTIVE rosters, not inactive ones. What's active? Satisfactory performance of assigned duties, of course.
Well, as long as we're turning the whole organization upside down for nothing that couldn't be accomplished with our current system, lets re-arrange the organizational structure at the same time.
Now, I don't think everything CAP does right now is the best way, but unlike many at least I recognize that CAP has managed to make it 65+ years with all of these burning problems that are apparently the downfall of the organization.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 27, 2007, 03:39:16 AM
CAP has managed to make it 65+ years with all of these burning problems that are apparently the downfall of the organization.
;D If it's not broke, don't fix it.
Point taken on CG Aux...see one does learn something new everyday! :D
well, I hope the NEC runs with the idea and does a great job of presenting a workable plan by next summer. They will surely have many questions and problems to figure out, but if you get the right people who can think outside the box then I'm sure they can come up with a really workable plan.
Keep in mind it won't please everybody but then again that shouldn't be the objective. The objective is to create a more professional CAP that builds our image up and raises the perception of us to the public and to the Air Force and Military at large.
Quote from: DrJbdm on October 27, 2007, 05:57:55 PM
well, I hope the NEC runs with the idea and does a great job of presenting a workable plan by next summer. They will surely have many questions and problems to figure out, but if you get the right people who can think outside the box then I'm sure they can come up with a really workable plan.
Keep in mind it won't please everybody but then again that shouldn't be the objective. The objective is to create a more professional CAP that builds our image up and raises the perception of us to the public and to the Air Force and Military at large.
And how exactly does having a NCO corps achieve this goal?
Quote from: Falshrmjgr on October 26, 2007, 10:28:10 PM
Gonna roll these together....
Secondly, I would challenge you to find a Senior NCO in any branch of service that feels "Patronized" by being a lowly NCO. In point of fact, NCO's are prized and valued by officers at all levels. It is no longer, and had not been for several decades, anything resembling the Victorian era British model.
NCO's are leaders, and experts at their craft. They are the backbone of any military, and are treated with as much, if nor more respect than most officers. Their role is different in that they work at the small unit level, and usually have longer longevity with a unit than an officer. They provide not only leadership and guidance, they provide the continuity of a unit, and are keepers of tradition, enforcers of standards, and the voice of common sense.
Take the Tech Sergeant example. A T/Sgt has been in the Air Force around a decade, is what the Marines would call a "Staff NCO" and is accorded much respect and responsibility. Anyone who thinks that being made a T/Sgt is an insult should have their head examined.
As far as being an "Embarassment," nothing could be further from the truth. No one in the military expects that a 2LT has got his head screwed on straight yet. A T/Sgt is expected to be knowledgeable, professional, and a subject matter expert.
[edit] In point of fact, why do you think so many prior military CHOOSE to wear NCO grade in CAP? Because they feel patronized? Or because they are extremely proud of their accomplishments and careers?
Finally, someone on topic and who understands what NCO's are all about... Bravo Zulu
-SeattleSarge
We are looking at things from an active duty perspective also, in the RES/Guard system they are very NCO heavy. I have been deployed with techs and masters doing airman work, because you do pretty much get promoted for time in service, time in grade and completing some PME. I have come upon a number of reserve NCO's that have the leadership ability of a wet towel...
I do think it is a credibility issue, especially when interacting with the AD/Guard or reserve types. They dont care if we arent "real military" we look like it and act like it, and it confuses them to see Majors doing airman work and certainly puts a bad taste in their mouth for the organization to deal officer to officer with someone that the best they can do is work at the local quickie-mart...
mk
Quote from: SeattleSarge on October 27, 2007, 09:27:54 PM
Quote from: Falshrmjgr on October 26, 2007, 10:28:10 PM
Gonna roll these together....
Secondly, I would challenge you to find a Senior NCO in any branch of service that feels "Patronized" by being a lowly NCO. In point of fact, NCO's are prized and valued by officers at all levels. It is no longer, and had not been for several decades, anything resembling the Victorian era British model.
NCO's are leaders, and experts at their craft. They are the backbone of any military, and are treated with as much, if nor more respect than most officers. Their role is different in that they work at the small unit level, and usually have longer longevity with a unit than an officer. They provide not only leadership and guidance, they provide the continuity of a unit, and are keepers of tradition, enforcers of standards, and the voice of common sense.
Take the Tech Sergeant example. A T/Sgt has been in the Air Force around a decade, is what the Marines would call a "Staff NCO" and is accorded much respect and responsibility. Anyone who thinks that being made a T/Sgt is an insult should have their head examined.
As far as being an "Embarassment," nothing could be further from the truth. No one in the military expects that a 2LT has got his head screwed on straight yet. A T/Sgt is expected to be knowledgeable, professional, and a subject matter expert.
[edit] In point of fact, why do you think so many prior military CHOOSE to wear NCO grade in CAP? Because they feel patronized? Or because they are extremely proud of their accomplishments and careers?
Finally, someone on topic and who understands what NCO's are all about... Bravo Zulu
-SeattleSarge
The question is not what NCO's are in the military (being a Senior Master Sgt, I am well aware of what that is like), but what they would be in CAP.
There have been a few people who have been saying if we had an NCO track, we wouldn't have these embarrassments as field grades, they'd be NCO's. If these people are embarrassments, we should get rid of them, not give them stripes.
It is true that in the military there are people better suited to being NCO's than officers, but that doesn't matter in CAP. Here officers and NCO's do basically the same job so it's a matter of personal choice rather than temperament. We have piles of current/former NCO's who decided to be CAP officers because that's the standard path for all Senior Members. I don't understand how they would suddenly be more productive if they were CAP NCO's instead. My professionalism is not magically bound to my stripes and unaccessible in an officer's uniform.
So, I'm still waiting for someone to finish the sentence that starts, "A CAP NCO corps will make for a better CAP because..."
You might have a long wait on that sentence completion. I'm not even certain what the CAP NCO program will look like. I know what I think it should be, but my thinking and NHQ's thinking are sometimes divergent.
As to the "Embarrassing" folks. Let me clarify.
IF we have a program with higher standards to become an officer, and with an enlisted track, the people accepted for service as an officer would have to show some degree of life achievement after high school. The person with a college degree, OR a private pilot license, OR who has completed a 6-month trade school has demonstrated the ability to do a few things in his personal life:
1. Analyze his situation and resources, and establish a goal.
2. Determine a plan for achieving that goal, including a plan for unding that goal.
3. Use time effectively, plan intermediate tasks, measure and verify progress toward the goal.
These are precisely the qualities we look for in officers. Add to the mix a pretty fair training program, and these people are much LESS likely (although there are no guarantees in life) to be perceived by others as incompetent clowns and posers if they are wearing officer rank.
Others would enter CAP as enlisted. Before an enlisted rose up to NCO rank, he would be in a position to perform various duties. If he is, in fact, a boob, (and we have all seen these guys) I think he would have less of an impact on our overall organizational image if he were "Senior Airman Boob" as opposed to "First Lieutenant Boob."
I have taken some flame for my comments, and I knew I would. Some have accused me of denigrating the enlisted rank and of being patronizing. Nobody has accused me of being wrong on this issue. (But the evening is still young.)
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 28, 2007, 03:14:50 AM
The person with a college degree, OR a private pilot license, OR who has completed a 6-month trade school has demonstrated the ability to do a few things in his personal life:
I have neither of those things. Yet I still have risen to become an Operations Manager for the 2nd largest Security company in the world. Does this mean I can't:
Quote
1. Analyze his situation and resources, and establish a goal.
2. Determine a plan for achieving that goal, including a plan for unding that goal.
3. Use time effectively, plan intermediate tasks, measure and verify progress toward the goal.
Well, guess I'm stuck with being an airman.
QuoteI do think it is a credibility issue, especially when interacting with the AD/Guard or reserve types. They dont care if we arent "real military" we look like it and act like it, and it confuses them to see Majors doing airman work and certainly puts a bad taste in their mouth for the organization to deal officer to officer with someone that the best they can do is work at the local quickie-mart...
You know, CAP is CAP. We have our needs and the military has theirs. I see no need to turn ourselves topsy turvy to avoid confusing a few military types here and there. They're pretty smart guys. It won't take but a few minutes to straighten them out. We haven't driven the AF into a tailspin by being associated with them this long. Somehow they've managed to come to grips with CAP's rank system. Let the NG do the same.
I think everyone wouldn't mind if our prof dev system was toughened up here and there, but there is nothing real to be gained by upending our system in some attempt to match military standards when 95%+ of the time CAP members hardly ever see a military person and only a very tiny percentage actually have any sort of working relationship with them.
As the NCO issue has rolled around here over the last year, I'm starting to form the impression that the proponents of an NCO Corps, especially those that want to keep it restricted to only current and former NCOs, are sort of snobish. I'm beginning to think that they want to set themselves apart from the rest of CAP members because they think they're better than the rest of us by virtue of being NCOs. You'd think this would be out of place since some folks look down on enlisted members, but when you think about it this is not much different from political candidates who try to make as much hay as possible about coming from humble roots. Former military officers don't seem to have any such pretentions and there are those that have taken rank reductions when they joined CAP.
I've been fighting to try to keep a generally open mind on the issue and there is still a slight possibility that NHQ will come up with a rational reason for there to be NCOs in the first place. At the moment I can't see any real benefit, but on the other hand, despite what I said above, I don't see a lot of potential for real harm either. Now, if we expand it to some of the other schemes being promoted here, the negatives start to add up quickly....
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 25, 2007, 02:53:49 PM
When I think what I, and others, had to endure to wear the gold bar of a 2nd Lt., and then I consider what a CAP member has to endure to earn the same privilege, I find a serious disconnect there!
I hope you were joking. There is no comparison between the two. You're comparing apples to oranges. A bar in CAP is accomplished by following CAP's guidelines and I find no problem with that.
Quote from: ddelaney103 on October 26, 2007, 03:22:16 PM
It just keeps coming back to the basic fact that "CAP rank is CAP rank." That's fine, but we need to ditch the bars and oak leaves.
If our grade didn't look like the Real Military (TM), so many problems would just fade away. Nobody would be sweating things like grade inversion, the "not ready for oak leaf majors," how we work with the AF when CAP officers interface with AF enlisted.
The problem is we're all about the bling. There are too many CAP'ers who want to look like real officers and will bolt when we tried to take that away. The NB crowd want their eagles (and stars, if they can get them) and won't move on anything like this. The cries of "I _earned_ this!" will echo across the land.
In the end, it'll be "sit down, shut up, and pass the tofu oak leaves."
I haven't been commenting much on CAPTalk lately, but this post right here in my opinion matches *exactly* what I have thought a long time.
Organizations (military oriented or not) can function just fine without Majors and what not. I also agree that doing away with "cut and paste" bars and leaves would compel a lot of folks to come to terms with a lot of things that frankly, I think would be far too painful if folks were given their druthers.
Imagine the horror of a CAP that happens to be a USAF auxiliary (when needed as such) that had it's own grades by title and design.
Might hack off folks that are in love with the notion of being sort of like a Lt Col with a big 'ole service cap (translate: blingage), but I'd gladly trade my leaves for something organizationally specific.
I don't think the Navy has an inferiority complex with having Lieutenant Commanders by title instead of Majors...I don't think GS-10s live in a state of agony either without insignia......and I think all of CAPTalks "deep thinkers" CAP types are man/woman enough to make the ego shift as well as anyone.
QuoteI don't think the Navy has an inferiority complex with having Lieutenant Commanders by title instead of Majors
Thats because they're following the traditions of the naval service. CAP was using military rank and insignia well before the creation of the USAF. Maybe they need to stop copying us and change THEIR insignia.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 28, 2007, 02:01:33 PM
QuoteI don't think the Navy has an inferiority complex with having Lieutenant Commanders by title instead of Majors
Thats because they're following the traditions of the naval service. CAP was using military rank and insignia well before the creation of the USAF. Maybe they need to stop copying us and change THEIR insignia.
Not really pulling the "who's first" card. That's actually irrelevant to the spirit of my post. ;)
Not at all. CAP has a long tradition of using military rank and insigna for its personnel that is separate and unique from the Air Force. We were using them even while we were part of the Office of Civilian Defense and before being attached to the Army.
And to stay on topic to some extent, I'll even point out that CAP has a long tradition of having an enlisted program for senior members.
Keep in mind that, if you have Maj.'s and Lt Col's walking around that do not display the professional image, remember that someone other than that Maj. or Lt Col approved their promotion. Promotions are not automatic. We should put more pressure on the Squadron, Group and Wing Commanders to only approve the promotion when the member is responsible to wear the next higher grade.
I agree that we should toughen up the Professional Development aspects of our program. We could even start a system like the WAPS system the Air Force uses for its enlisted. For promotion you'd take a written exam and meet an oral board in addition to TIG/TIS requirements.
Now then if you really want to intensify it and make us "commissioned" officers that have to meet the same criteria as our big brothers in the Air Force, as some have suggested/implied, then perhaps they ought to start paying us. You know that will never happen.
I'm a retired NCO (E-7) and a Lt Col in CAP. I've been a Supervising Deputy on a sheriff's dept. and a Sqdrn Cmdr three times in CAP and served on Group Staff. According to some of you I don't meet the requirements to be a CAP officer because I don't have a college degree even though I've been there and done that.
I guess I'll just give back my leaves and take my stripes. Oh yeah as PHall said I should give up being a TAC Officer at cadet encampments, something I do every year, because you can't be a TAC Officer as an NCO and have a LT as your assistant.
How to make NCOs work... Make slots that only NCOs can fill and have significantly less officer slots which also have clearly defined officer type roles. e.g. If your the Middleofnowhereville Composite Squadron and you can only really support X folks.... You become the Middleofnowhereville Flight commanded by a junior officer... with nearly everyone else as an NCO or airman.
Quote from: BillB on October 26, 2007, 11:04:39 PM
This whole thread is useless, the NB or NEC is NOT going to make any ideas brought up here on grade into a regulation. So many of these ideas sound fine until you look at a larger picture and see the problems these ideas would produce.
Bill, I think you have hit the nail on its round, flat head.
This entire thread is an exercise in "What If," because let's face it -- no one with suggestions here has the power and/or authority to change the way the CAP grade structure is set up, and those in such positions are simply not going to change it.
They may add to it (the proposed CAP NCO corps) but they're not going to change it.
With all respect to all of you (many of whom I find myself in agreement with), I have to say this is yet another attempt to fix something that isn't broken. The changes suggested may look good on the small-scale, but when you get to the larger scale (i.e., a National scale), you're creating more problems than you're solving.
Jack
QuoteThis entire thread is an exercise in "What If," because let's face it -- no one with suggestions here has the power and/or authority to change the way the CAP grade structure is set up, and those in such positions are simply not going to change it.
As is the case with 90% of the stuff discussed on the board. Not much different about this one.
Quote from: sarmed1 on October 27, 2007, 10:01:06 PM
They dont care if we arent "real military" we look like it and act like it, and it confuses them to see Majors doing airman work and certainly puts a bad taste in their mouth for the organization to deal officer to officer with someone that the best they can do is work at the local quickie-mart...
You are extremely right that they don't care if we aren't real military. Back in basic training we were briefed on CAP. Sort of a "if you see them, be nice, give the proper courtesy their rank requires, and don't worry about it." It had less emotional impact than news of a new McDonalds opening up outside the base.
However, I am very confused as to what is "airman work"? Could you please expand on that?
As a major in the Georgia State Defense Force, I was assigned to police the local area along with other captains, majors, and colonels, which meant we were outside, in uniform, picking up cigarette butts. That is what would be referred to as enlisted or airman work in my opinion. I have seen and heard how great the State Defense forces are, but from my humble view point, CAP is years ahead of them in almost all areas. As far as the rank structure in CAP, I think it is fine and only occasionally do I see an officer that I would question as to why he/she is the rank they are. Since we are a volunteer group and have to allow almost everyone in, there will occasionally be someone that slips through the cracks. I really feel that any problems we have are because of a poor commander as all promotions require the approval of the immediate commander... I think we all have lot to be proud of and should work to improve the personnel we have instead of trying to figure out how to hold people down or change our structure and Regs, which have worked remarkably well for maybe 60 or so years. As usual, just my opinion and your mileage may vary..
I know we've visited this topic before, but this is the first time in years that the NB is visiting the issue.
The idea has merit: there are folks in CAP that hold officer grades with no real leadership ambitions, and become what I call "1st Lt > 25," which for the most part doesn't exist in the U.S. Military. Remember that the goal of military officers is to seek command: relatively few in CAP actually do. I mean really: How many dysfunctional/ineffective CAP "Officers" do you know?
Having an experienced Senior Enlisted Advisor for units has the potential to raise the bar for the organization as a whole (provided that it's done right.) They do it in ROTC, and it works quite well.
On the other hand, creating an NCO infrastructure where none existed before presents some unique and interesting problems. Will we create an NCO corps to fill a need, or will it be a need to be filled?
Will there be restrictions on what jobs they can/can't do in CAP? What will the service/performance/PME requirements for advancement entail? What incentive will there be for someone to pursue a CAP Enlisted track? Once upon a time CAP had more NCO's, where there are virtually none today: what happened?
If this is to be an effective endeavor that can potentially benefit the organization, much thought and planning needs to go into it.
QuoteHaving an experienced Senior Enlisted Advisor for units has the potential to raise the bar for the organization as a whole (provided that it's done right.) They do it in ROTC, and it works quite well.
You're forgetting that we've already got plenty of NCOs wearing officers rank in CAP right now. If they had the gumption to speak up for "standards" they would already be doing so.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 29, 2007, 01:35:11 AM
QuoteHaving an experienced Senior Enlisted Advisor for units has the potential to raise the bar for the organization as a whole (provided that it's done right.) They do it in ROTC, and it works quite well.
You're forgetting that we've already got plenty of NCOs wearing officers rank in CAP right now. If they had the gumption to speak up for "standards" they would already be doing so.
I haven't forgotten: I'm a former NCO myself, but unless someone asks, or recognizes a ribbon or two, folks won't know.
Also, having been a commander and staff at various levels, I don't function as a CAP member like I did when I was an NCO: it's a different environment, and I'm in a different role.
What's important is VISIBILITY: the site of a member with stripes & rockers gives a different impression, particularly on cadets. Moreover, the starndards and conduct of a professional NCO can have a lasting positive effect on the budding future leaders that we develop.
Again, this is a good opportunity, if done right....
Please explain exactly what is keeping you from setting such a great example now (I assume you're a great example)? A guy with CAP Captain's bars can be just as much an example to cadets and other senior members.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 29, 2007, 01:54:04 AM
Please explain exactly what is keeping you from setting such a great example now (I assume you're a great example)? A guy with CAP Captain's bars can be just as much an example to cadets and other senior members.
What's keeping me from setting the example to others? Nothing at all: I'd like to think that I am doing so every day. However, I'm not doing it as a CAP NCO.
I've seen NCO-turned-squadron-commanders who try to be NCO's in running their units: it doesn't quite work.
If this CAP NCO-thing is to work, much must be done to give the position the prestige that it's due: like the Regimental Sergeant-Major at Sandhurst (who's by far the most squared-away NCO in the free world: one spoke at my PLDC graduation in 1985.) He, his staff NCO's and all the officer cadre set a sterling example for cadets, but as the Top NCO, he enjoys that flavorful "certain something" that no one else has...
Regarless of experience, or what you wear/wore on your other uniform sleeves, you can't duplicate that as a Lt/Capt/Maj/Col (CAP or Military) It's not better or worse, just different.
Quote from: O-Rex on October 29, 2007, 01:48:16 AM
Moreover, the starndards and conduct of a professional NCO can have a lasting positive effect on the budding future leaders that we develop.
Must have been asleep at the wheel - I really don't remember any NCOs conducting training when I was a cadet. Basic training while enlisted - oh yes! The naval services do use NCOs to train their officers - but I can't remember the AF doing so.
QuoteI've seen NCO-turned-squadron-commanders who try to be NCO's in running their units: it doesn't quite work.
More than likely it was an issue with a former military person (of any rank) trying to run a CAP unit -- an often discussed issue here.
Quote from: Short Field on October 29, 2007, 03:28:03 AM
The naval services do use NCOs to train their officers
What about AOC Candidates at P'Cola?
And, ok. I'll join in too I guess. Here is what my rank chart would look like using the same promotion criteria that we already have in place:
4 yr No or less
College College
-----------------------------------
Col Command CMSgt
Lt Col CMSgt
Maj SMSgt
Capt MSgt
1st Lt TSgt
2d Lt SSgt
------------------------ Age or education separation
SFO SrA
TFO A1C
FO Amn
Duty Performance - Same criteria. 4 year college starts at 2d Lt after 6 months (or FO for age) and no college starts at SSgt after 6 months (or Amn for age). 12 months and technician = 1st Lt or TSgt, 18 months after that and Level II = Capt or MSgt, etc on up to Lt Col or CMSgt. Col and Command Chief are appointments for staff positions.
Special Appointments - Commander Appointments don't change, but without college the person must progress through FO ranks first. Former cadets with college stay the same. Former cadets without college use FO ranks (Mitchell = FO, Spaatz = SFO).
Mission Related Skills - With college, stays the same. Pilots without college use FO ranks: FO = 2d Lt requirements up to SFO = Capt requirements. Same with maint, comm, and ground instructors.
Professional Appointments - Chaplain, MLO, Health, and Legal won't be changed much because of current college requirements but if those are not met, use appropriate FO ranks. Health personnel in EMT or less than 4 year college requirements will use enlisted ranks starting at SSgt for 21+ or Amn for 18-20. AE and finance will also use enlisted (age appropriate) unless they are at a 4 yr college level.
--------------------------
Could be tweaked a little, of course, but makes the most sense to me if we were to go to it (and no, I don't have a 4 yr degree either).
As long as position has nothing to do with rank you won't have actually done anything useful except create an unnecessary class system within CAP. Now we'll have Tech Sergeants running squadrons with Captains in them.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 29, 2007, 03:48:33 AM
As long as position has nothing to do with rank you won't have actually done anything useful except create an unnecessary class system within CAP. Now we'll have Tech Sergeants running squadrons with Captains in them.
No, you'd have a Technical Flight Officer running a squadron with Captains in it. With a squadron commander appointment and no college, the person would have the same grade advancement and time requirements, but would just have to start at FO. Applying the same advancement, the person would advance to TFO (like the current advancement to 1st Lt for Sqdn CC), then after a year would promote to SFO. With that level of expertise by then they could enter into the "commissioned" officer ranks at 2d Lt with their command experience in lieu of a degree.
Let's recall one item of history.... The USAF uniforms we are "allowed" to wear are approved by USAF as a courtesy. They have a lot of input as to what is allowed and what the "standards" for wear are. As I recall, the relatively recent promotion of the National Commander rank to Major General was out of sync with the Sec of AF and led to yet another "embarrassment" for the organization.
Also, as I recall, the CAP NCO ranks were dropped because there were a number of embarrassing incidents in which CAP NCO's crashed base NCO clubs and the hue and cry resulted in the dissolution of the CAP NCO program (excepting current and past DOD NCO's who desired to retain their separation rank). Now that was in a time when drinking and smoking were de riguer in all services within the military. So you can see how easy it would have been to become an embarrassment in a testosterone rich environment after having had a few too many. I suspect there is enough bad memory remaining in the service (some 30 years later) to still put up considerable resistance to allowing Joe Smith, TechSgt, CAP with all rights and privileges assumed while on base. The assumption that "officers and gentlemen" could better handle their liquor (and behaviour) saved CAP Officer access to Officer clubs, but still not without considerable grousing at some I have attended.
I will agree with many who have lamented the lack of professional training and standards for the officer corps in CAP. In my opinion, TRAINING is the single thing CAP does the worst of any national service organization there could be. I don't mean learning how to be a mission pilot and flying safe and effective missions (though that area itself is spotty at best), but continual training to meet the ever changing environment we are part of in service to the aviation community. Training on administrative and financial management, on personnel management and evaluation, psychological aspects of stress and the work place, how to balance volunteer service against family and work responsibilities, resolving the schizophrenia of the CAP mission (Cadets, Aerospace education, and SAR), etc. But every time a "new" training program is developed, someone decides it is adversely affecting recruiting or retention and the program begins to be "streamlined" so that a 80 hour course of training soon becomes a 40 minute on-line exercise. I believe this abdication of training responsibility is the PRIMARY reason why CAP lost its central role in general aviation education from the 40's, why there are so many national ground rescue programs to which CAP now goes for certification, why CAP has next to no relationship with NASA for public education, and why CAP itself is that great silent and invisible organization. But that gets off the point........
Ever since the CAP grade structure was disconnected from service related jobs, the one element of positive reinforcement that grade could provide was lost. Prior to 1969, to become a Captain, besides training objectives, you had to serve as a squadron commander of a unit with over 25 members or as an assistant group staff officer for over one year. To become a Major, you had to be a squadron commander of a composite squadron with over 50 members, or a group commander, or serving as a wing staff assistant. To become a LtCol, you had to successfully serve on Wing Staff as a director for at least 12 months (some of these limits are from memory, but I believe I can find an old staff manning table to get actual numbers). Once those service requirements were dropped (because many complained that they would never get a chance to be promoted because there were no squadrons with 50 members, and limited group and wing staff jobs) then retention except for the "glory hunters" (as another stated, the "bling" effect) began to fade. There used to ALWAYS be a waiting list for service on group or wing staff. Now it is often all a commander can do to get someone in a position no matter how unqualified they may be.
You see, there are three major differences between the actual military and CAP.
1) The first has been mentioned and is simply that as a volunteer staffed community service organization, your commanders and staff are made up of those who said "yes." Qualification be darned. Until you find someone to say "yes" then the slot remains unfilled and you MUST get it filled to pass your next evaluation.....
2) Secondly, in the REAL military, all rank is acquired by qualification/experience and automatically filtered by retirements and separations. In CAP, membership is for LIFE. Once obtained, the rank stays no matter how you obtained it. For CAP to ever have a rank structure that reflected a level of service then the permanent award of the rank must be tied to successful service to the organization over time.
3) And thirdly, in the military, rank and authority are (usually) linked. A serving line officer's rank determines the legal command authority in any situation affecting a given mission. (Medical Corps officers, Signal Corps Officers, etc. are not line officer's for the purpose of command of a combat unit for example.) In CAP, no rank EVER signifies directly the authority of the individual. A Wing Commander who chose to wear a business suit and never obtain any CAP rank would have the SAME authority of a Wing Commander meeting full USAF uniform standards, wearing the uniform and rank of a Colonel. And that same, SM Wing Commander would have as much authority over a retired CAP Major General as he had over any other senior member serving in that wing. And note that in either case, the Wing Commander of wing A would have zilch authority in Wing B. ALL authority in CAP is positional dependent, NEVER rank dependent.
As Wing Director for Emergency Services, I always made it clear to Incident Commanders in training that CAP rank had no relationship to their authority when they were serving as the active IC. The CAP IC serves under the authority of their Wing Commander and all CAP resources within that wing are available as needed for the mission.
Sooooo, given the above it is clear that CAP has no need of the rank structure and it is in point of fact often counter productive to both retention and the promotion of a professional organization. Rank may serve a ceremonial role for individuals serving in particular positions of authority, but as a "permanent" fixture, it is best treated as a specific reward for service performed to the organization over a long period of time. The whole idea of re-introducing a CAP NCO corps is a misplaced focus distracting from far greater areas of concern......
Quote from: jkmassey on October 29, 2007, 04:20:49 AM
The whole idea of re-introducing a CAP NCO corps is a misplaced focus distracting from far greater areas of concern......
Also an interesting angle for discussion. From that perspective, you would also introduce ES qualifications into the mix. An IC, for instance, would have command over all of the MPs, MOs, GTMs, etc. during a mission but would not necessarily be in a squadron, group, or wing level command position. There would have to be some middle ground there for it all to link together.
Quote from: jkmassey on October 29, 2007, 04:20:49 AM
Let's recall one item of history.... The USAF uniforms we are "allowed" to wear are approved by USAF as a courtesy. They have a lot of input as to what is allowed and what the "standards" for wear are. As I recall, the relatively recent promotion of the National Commander rank to Major General was out of sync with the Sec of AF and led to yet another "embarrassment" for the organization.
Correction - the current status of the CAP National Commander grade of Major General was approved by the SecAF. In the early to mid 80's, the CAP/CC talked the NEC into promoting him to Maj Gen and the result of this and his antics as such was a smack down by the USAF. It also changed the grade of the CAP/CC back to Brig Gen until a few years ago, when the SecAF approved the promotion of the CAP/CC to Maj Gen.
Well, with all your educational requirements, experience be [darn]ed, are you also going to toss in some age restrictions too? I can't think of the cut off point for commissioning in the AF right now. But there is one.
Also, like I said before, if you're going to match us up with all the same qualifications as the active military, you might just well try and get us some paid positions because you're not going to get volunteers to do it for free when they can get O-4 or O-5 pay in the service.
JKMASSEY, that is one of the best posts I have seen here lately!
Quote from: jaybird512 on October 29, 2007, 04:51:07 AM
Quote from: jkmassey on October 29, 2007, 04:20:49 AM
The whole idea of re-introducing a CAP NCO corps is a misplaced focus distracting from far greater areas of concern......
Also an interesting angle for discussion. From that perspective, you would also introduce ES qualifications into the mix. An IC, for instance, would have command over all of the MPs, MOs, GTMs, etc. during a mission but would not necessarily be in a squadron, group, or wing level command position. There would have to be some middle ground there for it all to link together.
Not going to fly.
In an understaffed and manned volunteer organization which seeks out pre-trained professionals for its ranks you cannot tie grade to authority.
Period.
CAP does not have bilets, slots, and cannot tie professional development to command authority, and I will grant you this is what causes us some of our challenges.
Why? Because in the RealMilitary® when you run out of people who want the job, you can >MAKE< someone do it (for better or worse). That is not a possibility in CAP, and never will be.
There is one way to link grade to authority - at least better than we do now.
Make the rank temporary and somehow linked to the position you're holding.
In this model, a squadron commander will outrank the folks who work for him. And, in fact, will outrank the folks who work for other squadron commanders. You know, kinda like real life.
Of course, such a model would require folks to turn in the rank when they step down.
And to keep some connection of qualifications to grade, a less than totally qualified person would not wear the same grade as a fully qualified person in the same level of job (for example, a Level II guy in a major's slot only gets to wear captain until he gets level III). This would cause some grade inversion, but a heck of a lot less than we have now.
With such a system, CAP could then then write regs to grant some authority based solely on current grade.
Quote from: O-Rex on October 29, 2007, 03:39:04 AM
Quote from: Short Field on October 29, 2007, 03:28:03 AM
The naval services do use NCOs to train their officers
What about AOC Candidates at P'Cola?
Traning naval aviators for the USN and USMC... USMC also uses NCOs to train their Marine Officer Candidates. I am not sure what percentage of NCOs are used at the Marine Officer Basic School. USN & USMC = Naval Service - at least until the Marines learn to walk on water.
Well I found this link here on e-services:
http://level2.cap.gov/documents/NCO_Briefing.pdf
It's a PDF of a powerpoint presentation that seems to go a bit more in-depth on this NCO idea. I couldn't help but raise an eyebrow though at this quote: "The Bottom line: The NCO’s primary function is to ensure the Commander is successful!" Ummm, in an organization such as Civil Air Patrol, where would that leave the Officers? It's not like the RM, where there's enough of the elements working together to actually provide the right atmosphere and need for NCOs. In the RM, the Officers are the supervisors, they decide what needs doing. The NCOs decide how. The basics execute. With CAP though, it's not that simple. By it's very nature, case in point ES, Officers are all three levels....and it's worked perfectly fine for over 60 years. The closest thing we have right now is the Cadet Program. The Senior Members decide what, the Cadet Officers and Cadet NCOs decide how, and the basics execute.
Other than that there's no need for it, in my opinion.
This really puts the whole discussion into perspective. The presentation says there are currently 44 CAP NCOs. In other words 0.001282 of CAP senior members or a few more than 1 out of a thousand members are NCOs. Now, there is no way of telling how many current or former NCOs we have in the organization now, but I am very sure it is a whole lot more than that and hardly any of them have made this choice.
Now, the miniscule number that have for whatever reason decided to be CAP NCOs are apparently going all out to come up with an entire new program with insignia, promotions, duty assignments, etc. to try to justify their personal choice.
Some will argue that the number of CAP NCOs is so low because there isn't a purpose to the program now and that if it does get a purpose people will resign their officer rank to become NCOs to be able to participate in the program. Seems like a long shot to me.
Okay, let's assume that we actually implement this-don't expect droves of three-stripers running around your unit. Prudence and forethought (?) would dictate that Wing Senior Enlisted Advisors be appointed (current/retired Chiefs) and then we could go top-down from there.
I agree that regardless, we are not going to have many NCO's-we would need to clearly define their roles, and educate the masses accordingly. As it is, we already have alot of folks who wear officer rank and haven't clue-one on the concept of "officership," much less the officer/NCO relationship.
As for "homegrown" non prior-service CAP NCO's, we'd do all a disservice if we "shake & bake" them ("Shazam: you're now a Senior Chief!")
If we're going to go through with this, I really hope we don't turn this concept into a complete joke....
I would love to see the distribution of those forty four NCOs. Are they spread randomly throughout the program? Or is there a small number of units that have several?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that they can only track 44 of them. The rest haven't got their collar beacons yet. Soon, CAP Ground teams will have their L'Pers reconfigured to track the elusive and nocturnal NCO.
"Look at the size of that NCO! Watchout mate!
Because when they strike it can be that quick that if they're within range, you're dead, you're dead in your tracks. And his head weighs more than my body so it's WHACK! Now I've wrestled some big crocs, and I've caught some big NCOs. I bled a lot. I got hit across the face. We couldn't film for seven days. I got hit, whacked, underwater, across the face. I finished the shot, got into the boat and blood started coming out. but this CAP NCO is the biggest creature we have been able to rescue from the clutches of being an officer. I'm going to distract him with this donut while my mate bonks him with the clipboard and we'll slip this collar on 'im.
Crikey!"
Well, I am still waiting for someone to explain to me what "airman's work" is.
Also, most USAF flying squadrons (the ones that own airplanes) are mainly composed of officers. I would be surprised if a TFS has 5 NCOs in it.
Quote from: JThemann on October 30, 2007, 03:50:27 AM
I would love to see the distribution of those forty four NCOs. Are they spread randomly throughout the program? Or is there a small number of units that have several?
This is a mistake in reading the brief.
They say "44," but then note they don't track NCO numbers unless the individual ID's themself on the application form. Since the grade form for an NCO/FO is held locally and may (but doesn't have to) go to NHQ, the numbers could be way off.
Still, I think we're talking in the 200-300 range at best.
Since rank is maintained in e-services, it should be easy to count. Unless they only show up as SM in the data base.
Quote from: Short Field on October 30, 2007, 04:00:52 AM
Well, I am still waiting for someone to explain to me what "airman's work" is.
Also, most USAF flying squadrons (the ones that own airplanes) are mainly composed of officers. I would be surprised if a TFS has 5 NCOs in it.
In a C-130 squadron, you're looking at about 20-30 enlisted, not counting loads. There's the orderly room, life support, intel, airfield management. The farther away you get from ops, the more enlisted you see.
Quote from: Short Field on October 30, 2007, 04:12:54 AM
Since rank is maintained in e-services, it should be easy to count. Unless they only show up as SM in the data base.
That will be the case unless they send the info to NHQ to add to the db, which is not required.
Quote from: ddelaney103 on October 30, 2007, 04:09:55 AM
Quote from: JThemann on October 30, 2007, 03:50:27 AM
I would love to see the distribution of those forty four NCOs. Are they spread randomly throughout the program? Or is there a small number of units that have several?
This is a mistake in reading the brief.
They say "44," but then note they don't track NCO numbers unless the individual ID's themself on the application form. Since the grade form for an NCO/FO is held locally and may (but doesn't have to) go to NHQ, the numbers could be way off.
Still, I think we're talking in the 200-300 range at best.
So is that 44 the number of CAP dudes and girls with stripes on their shoulder, or just the number that National knows of?
I figured NHQ could at least figure out how many NCOs we have to start with.
I read the brief as saying that there are only 44 in the entire nation who are CAP NCO and it does acknowledge that there are probaby many more former NCOs in CAP, but they have not chosen to be CAP NCOs. I asume that the briefer had done some sort of survey to determine how many were out there.
Sorry.
None of the nay-sayers have convinced me that this is a bad idea.
On the other hand, mplementation of this plan might screw it up.
I guess I have to say that I am still keeping an open mind on this one.
This COULD be a great program, but I have some doubts.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 30, 2007, 01:18:22 PM
Sorry.
None of the nay-sayers have convinced me that this is a bad idea.
On the other hand, mplementation of this plan might screw it up.
I guess I have to say that I am still keeping an open mind on this one.
This COULD be a great program, but I have some doubts.
What would it need to do in order to make this a "great program?"
Fair question.
To be a great program, the CAP NCO/enlisted program would have to pretty much re-create CAP, or at least morph it into something different from what we know now.
It would also have to provide for a lot of flexibility to meet the personal needs of volunteers.
We all have folk in our units who say "I only want to do _____." (Fill in name of selected activity) There are those who only want to play with the cadets, and have zero interest in any other mission. There are the guys who only want to be involved in commo. Only want to be on a GT, with no interest in advancing beyond GTL.
We could, under a great program, make such persons enlisted specialists. There's no reason that the "Cadet Mom" who wants no part of ES and no part of AE could not serve as an airman-to-NCO. Similarly, the commo guy could advance up through the NCO ranks, and never have to concern himself with cadets, except to train a cadet or two as radio operators. They could become supervisors and subject-matter experts as NCO's.
The officers would have to buy into the whole package, and the officer PD program would have to establish broad knowledge of all CAP activity.
The big question would be the guys who "Only want to fly." Traditionally, pilots are officers, and as the pilot in command, such rank is appropriate. So, I guess I would give pilots 2ndLt, and see if they ran with that rank and climbed up through the officer ranks. If they didn't, they stay second lieutenants for life, a fate worse than death. Observers and scanners, with no interest in any other parts of the program, could remain NCO's, but I'm sure there will be some who disagree.
This would keep CAP with a supply of volunteers as worker-bees, without giving lieutenant colonel rank to a guy who can't spell "ES," and who has never been on a mission.
Concur with Kach's view on enlisted specialists....fairly appropriate, too -- as I understand it, the reason USAF eliminated warrant ranks was that senior NCOs were the Air Force's technical specialists.
The one point I disagree about is the 'just a pilots'. I fail to see why CAP pilots (who do not wish to assume other accompanying officer level responsibilities) should not serve in NCO grades....both Navy & Marines had NCO pilots early in World War II....RAF had them, I think, right through the war.
At most I'd make the Flight Officers.
ZZ:
I tend to agree, but tradition dictates otherwise.
I like the idea of FO's, but apparently Big Mama Blue does not.
John, I don't think USAF really cares what grade we give pilots, if any!
Quote from: ddelaney103 on October 30, 2007, 04:13:32 AM
[In a C-130 squadron, you're looking at about 20-30 enlisted, not counting loads. There's the orderly room, life support, intel, airfield management. The farther away you get from ops, the more enlisted you see.
What was the total manning in the C-130 squadron - and were all the enlisted part of the squadron manning document or just attached to the squadron from wing or another unit?
I agree Flight Officers for mission related skills would be a good ideal. Once they completed the required training they then could be promoted to the correct officer grade. But we are getting off the track of this tread. They are looking into a NCO corp. and looking to repport back at the August NB meeting.
Im actually all for getting rid of ranks all together. Keep ribbons and medals.....get rid of rank. I know a lot of you like to walk around with it on your shoulder.....but all it shows is what level of the PD program you have achieved. And we already have ribbons for those accomplishments.
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 30, 2007, 09:18:56 PM
........... I know a lot of you like to walk around with it on your shoulder.....but all it shows is what level of the PD program you have achieved..........
This is not quite true. There are Lt Cols and at least one Col who have never advanced past Level 1 in PD.
*edit for spelling
Quote from: Short Field on October 30, 2007, 04:00:52 AM
Well, I am still waiting for someone to explain to me what "airman's work" is.
Also, most USAF flying squadrons (the ones that own airplanes) are mainly composed of officers. I would be surprised if a TFS has 5 NCOs in it.
Having only had direct experience with USN/USMC squadrons, I ask - who owns the guys who fix the airplanes?
In my world (USN/USMC), the maintainers belong to the same unit that owns the airplains and the pilots. The E's outnumber the O's by at least 3 to 1, if not more. I'm not going to drag out a cruise book and count heads.
Quote from: SarDragon on October 30, 2007, 10:31:53 PM
Quote from: Short Field on October 30, 2007, 04:00:52 AM
Well, I am still waiting for someone to explain to me what "airman's work" is.
Also, most USAF flying squadrons (the ones that own airplanes) are mainly composed of officers. I would be surprised if a TFS has 5 NCOs in it.
Having only had direct experience with USN/USMC squadrons, I ask - who owns the guys who fix the airplanes?
In my world (USN/USMC), the maintainers belong to the same unit that owns the airplains and the pilots. The E's outnumber the O's by at least 3 to 1, if not more. I'm not going to drag out a cruise book and count heads.
In the AF this has changed a little over time. An airlift group has one or more flying sqdns and a maintenance sqdn. However, the crew chiefs have at times belonged to either airlift or maintenance.
An ops sqdn is very officer heavy, while I spent years in a maintenance sqdn and rarely saw an officer.
Quote from: Short Field on October 30, 2007, 08:47:23 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on October 30, 2007, 04:13:32 AM
[In a C-130 squadron, you're looking at about 20-30 enlisted, not counting loads. There's the orderly room, life support, intel, airfield management. The farther away you get from ops, the more enlisted you see.
What was the total manning in the C-130 squadron - and were all the enlisted part of the squadron manning document or just attached to the squadron from wing or another unit?
Part of the unit.
Quote from: ddelaney103 on October 30, 2007, 10:37:33 PM
Part of the unit.
Thanks - the squadrons I was associated with had very few enlisted actually assigned - most were attached from wing or other support squadrons. But I was drifting off the thread and will try to get back on.
My main issue with an NCO Corps is understanding what role they will be filling and what functions they are going to be doing. I still don't see jobs in CAP that I didn't see being done by officers in the RM. Granted, a lot of that depended on the unit I was with, but I served in a lot of officer heavy units that had very routine administrative duties performed as additional duties by the officers.
Some of the discussions seems to focus on preventing people from holding officer rank that some on the board don't feel they deserve to hold. So what if someone never promotes past 2nd Lt or someone else gets a special promotion to Lt Col. It doesn't block or slow up anyone else from getting promoted and it all pays the same. As long as they continue to support the organization, then we are gaining more from having them here than not having them here. Outside of the ones who get promoted to their CAP rank based on their RM rank, I really haven't seen any field graders who are not active in the squadron (if not now at least in their younger days) or behave so badly they are a disgrace to CAP. CAP rank ONLY reflects either the special skills an individual brings to CAP or their professional development.
So again, what advantage does NCO rank bring to CAP that officer rank doesn't already provide? Ignore the skills that a Command Chief Master Sergeant brings - we are looking at growing a NCO Corps and I don't see CAP ever growing even a Master Sergeant. NCO's to train cadets? Nothing a CAP officer can't do in the Tac Officer role. So lets start providing some details here.
Short Field:
We can't provide details. We can only speculate.
By Short Field...
So again, what advantage does NCO rank bring to CAP that officer rank doesn't already provide?
It isnt going to do anything for our program except give Vanguard something else to sell.
This is the problem with the system. The NEC is going to great lengths to develop an NCO corps proposal that will affect the whole of CAP in near total secrecy.
CAPTalk, which for all it's problems is probably the most informed cross section of members around, has no idea even the problem the NCO corps is being designed to solve, much less what the solution will be.
I'd love to see a survey of the membership and our customers asking what we're doing right, doing wrong, and what should be our priorities as an organization.
It's like a flashback to Al Udeid AB, where I imagined Chiefs and Colonels lying awake thinking, "Our mission capability hangs on our Airmen and they're running around with untucked PT shirts? THIS MUST NOT STAND!"
Civil Air Patrol: solutions in search of problems - villages in search of idiots.
Your point is taken, and I agree with you.
I dislike the secrecy that goes on at "Echelons Above Reality."
I thought that ended with the reign of the National Commander Whose Name Dare Not Be Spoken. I was mistaken, apparently.
I don't think the NCO proposal is any sort of a secret. We've been discussing it here for months and months in one thread or another.
What you're really asking for is more input from the members on ideas that are being discussed high up in CAP. Oddly enough, Pineda opened to door for people to do just that a few months ago in his Volunteer column.
Interesting discussion. I think the issue is really about technicians and managers.
The tags or icons of NCO's and Officers obfuscate the real need. I think we need to recognize those that are true technicians or craftsman of their skill and trade. We need a professional development track designed for a member that is a technician. This distinction would allow for the recognition of those inclined to be manager or commanders. We already have a professional development track designed for a member that is a manager/commander.
I think using the NCO idea introduces an unfortunate segregation, and for those not familiar with military structure it further mystifies the hierarchy.
I believe you can satisfy the needs of the organization as long as the objective is not just to give former military NCO the ability to get "promoted."
Ask yourself this question: If the topic was about introducing a Technician Corps would there be this much discussion? I don't think so. It would probably fly under the radar like a revision to a Specialty Track.
Hi, my name is Don, and I'm an NCO.
<thunderous chorus from the CAP-Talkers> Hi Don!
Didn't realize that their were only 44 of us, does that qualify us for some sort of federally protected minority status?
Why am I an NCO? I got bored as a Lt Col and tired of being asked to be a unit commander again.
My BTDT t-shirt is old and full of holes. I'm working on my second masters, have a GRW, some air saves as a mission observer, and was an MC in several different wings. I surely do not feel like a second class citizen in the program.
But I don't want to do the whole program right now. All I really want to do these days is fly cadet orientation rides (preferably in my airplane - but that was another thread) and teach a little aerospace education (it's nice to use that IGI/AGI for something).
So until someone recognises a need for old guy Flight Officers, y'all can call me Sergeant.
Quote from: Robert Hartigan on November 01, 2007, 03:06:54 AMWe already have a professional development track designed for a member that is a manager/commander.
Which one is that?
RTFM. There ain't one.
Quote from: CAPR 50-17, pg 11NOTE: Specialty code (222) is only used to designate personnel in command positions and is not a specialty training track. Commanders must have a separate specialty training track to progress in duty performance promotions and in the
professional development program.
Quote from: SarDragon on November 01, 2007, 05:49:52 AM
RTFM. There ain't one.
Quote from: CAPR 50-17, pg 11NOTE: Specialty code (222) is only used to designate personnel in command positions and is not a specialty training track. Commanders must have a separate specialty training track to progress in duty performance promotions and in the
professional development program.
You guys are all spoilsports lately! That's what I was gonna throw up next! ;D
Quote from: RiverAux on October 31, 2007, 10:00:11 PM
I don't think the NCO proposal is any sort of a secret. We've been discussing it here for months and months in one thread or another.
What you're really asking for is more input from the members on ideas that are being discussed high up in CAP. Oddly enough, Pineda opened to door for people to do just that a few months ago in his Volunteer column.
The non-commissioned officer PROPOSAL isn't secret, but what we do not know, and what we have been wildly speculating upon, is exactly what these NCO's are to do... what expectations should I have from them as an officer? How are they to be employed? What is their professional development and promotion track? Apparently, there is something that the NB is to consider that has not been shared with us.
This goes back to the whole "Shared vision" thing. I can get behind an NCO program for CAP, and I think there is some validity to establishing one. I think such a program, done right, will make CAP a better organization and improve the image and performance of CAP officers. But I would like to know how the HQ people see it, and what they plan to do.
Otherwise, we are left to speculate, and argue amongst ourselves about that which we do not know.
Quote from: Trung Si Ma on November 01, 2007, 03:44:23 AM
So until someone recognises a need for old guy Flight Officers, y'all can call me Sergeant.
Yup. I think "old guy Flight Officers" is EXACTLY what CAP needs.
Quote from: SarDragon on November 01, 2007, 05:49:52 AM
RTFM. There ain't one.
Quote from: CAPR 50-17, pg 11NOTE: Specialty code (222) is only used to designate personnel in command positions and is not a specialty training track. Commanders must have a separate specialty training track to progress in duty performance promotions and in the
professional development program.
I am sorry. I was talking large scale terms. The Senior Member Professional Development program is geared to develop the member along a course for executive leadership.(IMHO)
Right now the program has to be all things to all members so it is reduced to the lowest common denominator. There is nothing wrong with this approach! However if the objective is to achieve better development of our members then the idea of a technician (NCO) corps and an officer (manager) corps is worth exploring.
I think one of the problems is that the "marketing" of ideas in an agenda for a future meeting is out dated. I would like to see a website with the pros and cons explained. Then a real debate or discussion could take place. As it is now, I am reminded of those old guys in the balcony of the Muppet Show.
In CAPR 50-17 they may list a specialty track #222 for command, but this track is no longer available and a commander cannot be enrolled in it. I just check the on-line PD specialty track screen under e-services.
Quote from: USCAP_truth on November 01, 2007, 06:09:52 PM
In CAPR 50-17 they may list a specialty track #222 for command, but this track is no longer available and a commander cannot be enrolled in it. I just check the on-line PD specialty track screen under e-services.
It's not a track, per se, because there were never and tech/senior/master levels for it. It was just a place where commanders could be placed. It didn't make any sense - since I was commanding a composite sqdn, I just kept tracking as a CP officer.
Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 01, 2007, 06:47:15 PM
Quote from: USCAP_truth on November 01, 2007, 06:09:52 PM
In CAPR 50-17 they may list a specialty track #222 for command, but this track is no longer available and a commander cannot be enrolled in it. I just check the on-line PD specialty track screen under e-services.
It's not a track, per se, because there were never and tech/senior/master levels for it. It was just a place where commanders could be placed. It didn't make any sense - since I was commanding a composite sqdn, I just kept tracking as a CP officer.
The "Command" specialty track is only there as a place holder for commanders to use who haven't otherwise declared a track. As many of you may remember, some relatively recent changes to eServices caused an issue whereby members who did not have a track of some kind "declared", they would not receive credit for SLS or CLC.
Its silly because the fix, even for members who haven't chosen yet, is to chose "anything" with a rating of "none".
Commanders can choose to select the Command track in the same way.
I'd like to see a category in member reports to show command time: format would be similar to the one indicating encampments.
Quote from: Robert Hartigan on November 01, 2007, 02:35:34 PMI am sorry. I was talking large scale terms. The Senior Member Professional Development program is geared to develop the member along a course for executive leadership.(IMHO)
Robert, you're dead-on. Many of our members have neither the talent nor inclination to be executive leaders. That's not why they joined, and that's not what they're good at. Our PD is pretty much wasted on a large number of our members. It would be like sending every USAF NCO to the War College. Not the best use of their time or our resources.
Quote from: Robert Hartigan on November 01, 2007, 02:35:34 PM
Right now the program has to be all things to all members so it is reduced to the lowest common denominator. There is nothing wrong with this approach! However if the objective is to achieve better development of our members then the idea of a technician (NCO) corps and an officer (manager) corps is worth exploring.
Indeed. I'd say, though that there are a few reasons to look at Flight Officer grades for the technician corps rather than NCO grades.
1. Since it would be CAP specific grade, it wouldn't torque off anyone in the real miltary.
2. It would make everyone "officers", and eliminate a lot of the implications of having two classes of members.
3. It would work well for many of our very valuable, but not very military-minded members. NCOs (the technicians) have a rep for being more spit and polish than the officers (the leaders). It doesn't work that way in CAP.
4. Pilots are supposed to be officers traditionally. Many of our pilots would be in your technician group. Using Flight Officer grade makes them officers, but not leaders. Which is what they are.
5. Having NCOs assumes we grow them from EMs. That ain't gonna happen. Few 50 year olds are interested in being enlisted airmen. But making them flight officers wouldn't look bad at all, and would be a lot more palatable for the new member.
Quote from: Robert Hartigan on November 01, 2007, 02:35:34 PM
I think one of the problems is that the "marketing" of ideas in an agenda for a future meeting is out dated. I would like to see a website with the pros and cons explained. Then a real debate or discussion could take place. As it is now, I am reminded of those old guys in the balcony of the Muppet Show.
Yup, that us. The collective Statlers and Waldorfs of CAP-Talk!
QuoteThe non-commissioned officer PROPOSAL isn't secret, but what we do not know, and what we have been wildly speculating upon, is exactly what these NCO's are to do... what expectations should I have from them as an officer? How are they to be employed? What is their professional development and promotion track? Apparently, there is something that the NB is to consider that has not been shared with us.
Of course not ... that is exactly what the study group is supposed to be working on. Hard to releae to the rest of CAP when it hasn't been developed yet.
releae
Quote from: USCAP_truth on November 01, 2007, 06:09:52 PM
In CAPR 50-17 they may list a specialty track #222 for command, but this track is no longer available and a commander cannot be enrolled in it. I just check the on-line PD specialty track screen under e-services.
That track has NEVER been available for enrollment. See my post above as to the function of the 222 code.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 01, 2007, 10:40:58 PM
QuoteThe non-commissioned officer PROPOSAL isn't secret, but what we do not know, and what we have been wildly speculating upon, is exactly what these NCO's are to do... what expectations should I have from them as an officer? How are they to be employed? What is their professional development and promotion track? Apparently, there is something that the NB is to consider that has not been shared with us.
Of course not ... that is exactly what the study group is supposed to be working on. Hard to releae to the rest of CAP when it hasn't been developed yet.
Well, they could at least let us in on the goals of an NCO program. Perhaps they might get useful input instead of springing another surprise on us.
There is no program yet to discuss. Go look at the presentation cited earlier. That is the entirety of what is on the table now. That hasn't kept folks from going hog wild trying to re-deisgn our entire program in this one thread though.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 02, 2007, 01:04:37 AM
There is no program yet to discuss. Go look at the presentation cited earlier. That is the entirety of what is on the table now. That hasn't kept folks from going hog wild trying to re-deisgn our entire program in this one thread though.
There should at least be a purpose. Changing the program without an end goal in mind is "deck chairs on the Titanic" time.
"What are the problems that CAP has that a different NCO corps will correct?" or, "what is the improvement to be gained from a different NCO program?" to put a positive spin on it.
When the AF revamped uniforms, they came out with their ideas early. This meant some black eyes, ("Blue tiger stripes? fuggetaboutit!") but they were able to make course corrections before they were too far gone. Getting "buy in" from the rank and file could really help. Do they really want to know the answer to the question "What if they built an NCO program and nobody came?"
From the presentation: Three NCO functions:
Quote
1. Technical Expertise (Job Skills, AFSC, MOS)
2. Management Expertise
The organization's people
The organization's resources
The organization's activities
3. Leadership
Setting the Example
Enforcing Standards
Training
Mentoring
That is what they're thinking about. I've already stated my opinion that none of these require an NCO.
One resource that might help is this presentation http://level2.cap.gov/documents/u_081903112213.pdf (http://level2.cap.gov/documents/u_081903112213.pdf). It breaks down senior membership by rank and by education level. Since there are those who want to restrict officer rank to college graduates, this indicates that about roughly half of our current senior members wouldn't qualify under that criteria.
Frankly, I'm a little surprised as I would have guessed that a clear majority of CAP members had degrees
Quote from: SarDragon on November 01, 2007, 11:31:28 PM
That track has NEVER been available for enrollment. See my post above as to the function of the 222 code.
I'm enrolled in it...
Quote from: RiverAux on November 02, 2007, 02:45:17 AM
One resource that might help is this presentation http://level2.cap.gov/documents/u_081903112213.pdf (http://level2.cap.gov/documents/u_081903112213.pdf). It breaks down senior membership by rank and by education level. Since there are those who want to restrict officer rank to college graduates, this indicates that about roughly half of our current senior members wouldn't qualify under that criteria.
Frankly, I'm a little surprised as I would have guessed that a clear majority of CAP members had degrees
I've been given the third degree. Does that count?
Quote from: RiverAux on November 02, 2007, 02:45:17 AM
One resource that might help is this presentation http://level2.cap.gov/documents/u_081903112213.pdf (http://level2.cap.gov/documents/u_081903112213.pdf). It breaks down senior membership by rank and by education level. Since there are those who want to restrict officer rank to college graduates, this indicates that about roughly half of our current senior members wouldn't qualify under that criteria.
Frankly, I'm a little surprised as I would have guessed that a clear majority of CAP members had degrees
According to someone I know who used to work at National, the "big secret of CAP" is that while our cadets are primarily white collar, our seniors are primarily blue collar.
I have no details to back up that claim, but I remember it because it was so surprising.
Did anyone get to watch the Live Stream of the National Board and get to see what was decided on the NCO program?
Quote from: Brad on October 30, 2007, 02:56:32 AM
Well I found this link here on e-services:
http://level2.cap.gov/documents/NCO_Briefing.pdf
It's a PDF of a powerpoint presentation that seems to go a bit more in-depth on this NCO idea. I couldn't help but raise an eyebrow though at this quote: "The Bottom line: The NCO's primary function is to ensure the Commander is successful!" Ummm, in an organization such as Civil Air Patrol, where would that leave the Officers? It's not like the RM, where there's enough of the elements working together to actually provide the right atmosphere and need for NCOs. In the RM, the Officers are the supervisors, they decide what needs doing. The NCOs decide how. The basics execute. With CAP though, it's not that simple. By it's very nature, case in point ES, Officers are all three levels....and it's worked perfectly fine for over 60 years. The closest thing we have right now is the Cadet Program. The Senior Members decide what, the Cadet Officers and Cadet NCOs decide how, and the basics execute.
Other than that there's no need for it, in my opinion.
(sarcasm on)
HA HA HA! Silly me. And here I thought it was the commander's CO's job to make sure he/she is successful. HA HA HA!
How wonderful it is to shift responsibility for development and oversight of commanders on to Non-Commissioned Officers. In fact, let's make that standard in all organizations! Let's hold employees responsible for their supervisors' success! Yes, let's just leave the managers out of it. They already have so much to do... well with all that payroll to process... especially in CAP... Gosh... I'm not sure how they're able to hang on to their sanity. Let's not make them "manage" their subordinates.
(sarcasm off)
If that doesn't give you a clear picture of what's screwed up with our commanders, nothing else will.
It would sure give commanders a great excuse
"Of COURSE I wasn't successful - I don't have on of the 50 CAP NCOs in my unit to ensure my success!"
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 30, 2007, 07:29:35 PMTo be a great program, the CAP NCO/enlisted program would have to pretty much re-create CAP, or at least morph it into something different from what we know now.
It would also have to provide for a lot of flexibility to meet the personal needs of volunteers.
We all have folk in our units who say "I only want to do _____." (Fill in name of selected activity) There are those who only want to play with the cadets, and have zero interest in any other mission. There are the guys who only want to be involved in commo. Only want to be on a GT, with no interest in advancing beyond GTL.
We could, under a great program, make such persons enlisted specialists. There's no reason that the "Cadet Mom" who wants no part of ES and no part of AE could not serve as an airman-to-NCO. Similarly, the commo guy could advance up through the NCO ranks, and never have to concern himself with cadets, except to train a cadet or two as radio operators. They could become supervisors and subject-matter experts as NCO's.
The officers would have to buy into the whole package, and the officer PD program would have to establish broad knowledge of all CAP activity.
Since it looks like an enlisted program is probable, I'd agree with this type of program design, as long as it starts with slick sleeves. Promoting directly to an NCO grade after a video is blatantly foolish.
What I find disturbing is the advocating of a "flight officer for everyone" program, and the reasons behind it. To me, it appears that we'll just acknowledge the mediocrity, and lower the bar. No reasons to improve our member corps, just give them a meaningless rank. Then you can ignore everyone equally.
I don't have a problem with requiring our personnel to actually hold key staff positions
in a unit to advance. But mandating that someone must take positions well outside of the practical realm is wrong(such as requiring time at a wing position). As many people have stated here, we're not the military. Requiring a volunteer to simply ignore the life they have is not the way. And with the people that can't, you are intentionally creating the "haves" and "have-nots". It's inequitable in the extreme.
I may differ on a few of their points, but I still think the Iowa program has the right foundation. Educate and train our officers. A couple of weekends over six months may be inconvenient, but it isn't a life altering program. The Iowa seems to be an OCS concept, and it seems to be the thing to do. When you add up all the training required to start at entry to Level 4, it's only about a week and a half. We should be better than that. We don't need to be training to the same level as the active military, or even the Guard, but we should at least make the goals challenging.
I agree with John
But I would also like to add that If anyone has been in the US Air Force lately you will find that a huge number of NCO's have a BA or BS (obtained while on active duty). I was talking to a senior NCO at Edwards a few weeks ago and he told me that to make Master Sergeant, having a BA is almost expected and many Senior Master Sergeants and Chief Master Sergeant's have a masters degree.
But we got to do something about the lack of military training for CAP officers, I was at Beale AFB many months ago with about 20 CAP "Officers" and a bunch of them did know how to salute or as some said (After I chewed som A*%); Gee I don't know what the rank looks like> ::) :P >:(
Quote from: Hawk200 on November 05, 2007, 05:15:43 PM
When you add up all the training required to start at entry to Level 4, it's only about a week and a half.
14 Days: SLS = 2, CLC = 2, RSC = 5, NSC = 5
Toss in a couple of evenings to complete the foundations course and then however long it takes to complete AFIADL 13.
Quote from: Short Field on November 05, 2007, 09:24:53 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on November 05, 2007, 05:15:43 PM
When you add up all the training required to start at entry to Level 4, it's only about a week and a half.
14 Days: SLS = 2, CLC = 2, RSC = 5, NSC = 5
Toss in a couple of evenings to complete the foundations course and then however long it takes to complete AFIADL 13.
It was an approximation, but thanks for the more concise breakdown.
If we adopt an enlisted program, is the bar going to get even lower? Our non-prior service officers aren't the most trained or educated when it comes to military bearing and C&C. Will our CAP grown NCO's be even
lesser trained?
Sorry. I was just pushing the required training up all the way to Level V. Scary when you considering that our highest corporate officers only require two weeks of formal training.
???? ?? Maybe it means CAP really isn't part of the Armed Forces and doesn't require the same level of military bearing and training. ?? ???? Don't know, just a passing thought.
Quote from: afgeo4 on November 03, 2007, 05:03:16 PM
Quote from: Brad on October 30, 2007, 02:56:32 AM
Well I found this link here on e-services:
http://level2.cap.gov/documents/NCO_Briefing.pdf
It's a PDF of a powerpoint presentation that seems to go a bit more in-depth on this NCO idea. I couldn't help but raise an eyebrow though at this quote: "The Bottom line: The NCO's primary function is to ensure the Commander is successful!" Ummm, in an organization such as Civil Air Patrol, where would that leave the Officers? It's not like the RM, where there's enough of the elements working together to actually provide the right atmosphere and need for NCOs. In the RM, the Officers are the supervisors, they decide what needs doing. The NCOs decide how. The basics execute. With CAP though, it's not that simple. By it's very nature, case in point ES, Officers are all three levels....and it's worked perfectly fine for over 60 years. The closest thing we have right now is the Cadet Program. The Senior Members decide what, the Cadet Officers and Cadet NCOs decide how, and the basics execute.
Other than that there's no need for it, in my opinion.
(sarcasm on)
HA HA HA! Silly me. And here I thought it was the commander's CO's job to make sure he/she is successful. HA HA HA!
How wonderful it is to shift responsibility for development and oversight of commanders on to Non-Commissioned Officers. In fact, let's make that standard in all organizations! Let's hold employees responsible for their supervisors' success! Yes, let's just leave the managers out of it. They already have so much to do... well with all that payroll to process... especially in CAP... Gosh... I'm not sure how they're able to hang on to their sanity. Let's not make them "manage" their subordinates.
(sarcasm off)
If that doesn't give you a clear picture of what's screwed up with our commanders, nothing else will.
The commander is responsible for everything his unit does or fails to do.
That is pounded into the head of every officer from the first day of officer training. Before we had to paint our first rock.
Every staff officer's duty, and every NCO's duty is to support the commander.
But if it all falls apart, only the commander is responsible.
well If we cannot properly uphold the basic principles of being a military type organization, then we should do away with the Air Force Style and Corporate (with military rank) and dress up like airline pilots, we seem to be heading in that direction anyway.
Before I spoke I had not seen the Powerpoint
My take on it.
1. What the heck???? we cannot get people to do the current CAP training, we have how many specialty groups??
2. I think its a good way to recruit non-pilot people into CAP.
3. It makes sense, I mean we all are officers, after being a cadet and becoming a Captain I have always felt that there are many in CAP who are not suited to be wearing a uniform of an Air Force Captain. We need more military training before going up the chain of officer rank.
I think WingNut hit the nail on the head gentleman, as we are not a military organization, at best we are a quasi military organization. What good is an NCO core if we do not have lower ranks, what do they bring us? As a former serving enlisted man I fully understand the purpose of the NCO corp in the real military, but do not see a real need in CAP. Why do we need to further segregate our members into different classes. We do that already in several ways; if under 21 but over 18 and not a cadet then you are a flight officer; can't meet the weight / grooming requirements then we will set you apart by making you wear an alternative uniform. Now you want to do that even more based on some discussion on this subject, based upon education or other criteria to be determined. Why, what purpose does it serve? A college degree is no guarantee that a person will be a better leader or manager then someone who does not have a degree. If you want to fix some of the probelms in CAP, then we, as in the membership, need to spend our time and efforts developing a leadership program for our senior members and teaching leadership and stop wasting time and effort and trying to further divide the membership up.
Before you flame me, I have know both Officers and NCO's in the military I would follow into the gates of hell and some that I would not follow across the street. In regards to former NCO's, let them wear their rank with pride. In regards to uniforms, I am no different them most prior airman, in that I do not like to see what I consider as "my blue suit" worn improperly by members who either do not meet the grooming or weight standards.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RANT WARNING !!!!!!!!!
Quote from: wingnut on November 06, 2007, 12:39:13 AM
after being a cadet and becoming a Captain I have always felt that there are many in CAP who are not suited to be wearing a uniform of an Air Force Captain. We need more military training before going up the chain of officer rank.
Really!! ?? I have NEVER seen a CAP member wearing a
USAF Captain's uniform unless they were an active-duty USAF Captain. If I do, they will definitely hear about - if not face charges of impersonating an Officer. CAP members do wear CAP uniforms and wear CAP rank. CAP is NOT a military organization and CAP is NOT a para-military organization. It is the USAF Auxiliary. No amount of hooah or RM wannable uniforms is going to change that. The
ONLY people I have seen wearing a USAF Captain's uniform are the people who have
earned it by being selected by a
USAF Promotion Board to be a USAF Captain.
I HAVE NEWS FOR THE RANTEE
Air Force Officers working with CAP officer see us Wearing the US Air Force uniform with a very slight modification. If you are on a U. S. Military base YOU WILL BE SALUTED because from 5 feet you cannot see much distinction except Captains Bars on the uniform. Now with that said, I have worked and continue to work with the USAF, US Army, US Navy while in CAP on CAP operations and they sometimes look much worse than some of us.
If you don't think it is a USAF Uniform, then I ask you why does it go through the USAF for any modification and Approval and must meet USAF regulations as well.
But hey, we seem to be distancing ourselves from the USAF so lets just all become Airline Pilots, or wear grey pants and a blue golf shirt.
As the Commander of Northcom said in a news conference about the Military assets used for fire support in California, two weeks ago, He was using as many Title 10 assets (That's USAF Reserve, National Guard, and CAP) under his command as possible (We were activated for the mission the next day)
When you are wearing the CAP USAF uniform (You may call it Style) your wearing the Uniform of the USAF Auxiliary and under the Command of the USAF while on an AFAM mission. We may not be under the UCMJ, and not Commissioned, we are expected to conduct ourselves with the same customs and courtesies of a Military Officer, while in uniform.
Sorry I rant, comes from being a former cadet. I would like to see the waffle stop
AUX on AUX off
That reminds me I have to get a Haircut before our meeting
Quote from: wingnut on November 06, 2007, 04:33:17 AM
If you don't think it is a USAF Uniform, then I ask you why does it go through the USAF for any modification and Approval and must meet USAF regulations as well. But hey, we seem to be distancing ourselves from the USAF so lets just all become Airline Pilots, or wear grey pants and a blue golf shirt.
The US Coast Guard wears the same style and shade blue shirt and pants but with different insignia - I don't think they believe they are wearing a USAF uniform. I also use to be very familiar with AFR 35-10 or whatever it is called today and I don't remember a section on CAP uniforms in it. From previous discussions and USAF decisions, the USAF seem to be very concerned with making sure USAF personnel can tell the difference between the USAF and CAP. Most CAP proposals seem to want to blur the difference. A CAP uniform is a CAP uniform - gray pants or USAF style. The gray slacks just make it easier to tell the difference at a distance.
Quote from: wingnut on November 06, 2007, 04:33:17 AM
As the Commander of Northcom said in a news conference about the Military assets used for fire support in California, two weeks ago, He was using as many Title 10 assets (That's USAF Reserve, National Guard, and CAP) under his command as possible (We were activated for the mission the next day)
Title 10 defines the US Armed Forces. CAP is defined under Title 10 (Chapter 909) as a federally chartered nonprofit corporation and is defined as a volunteer
civilian auxiliary of the Air Force.
Civilian is not
Military. CAPR 20-1 defines CAP and its members as an instrument of the US for the purpose of civil liability while performing authorized missions for the USAF. CAP is NOT part of the military.
Quote from: wingnut on November 06, 2007, 04:33:17 AM
When you are wearing the CAP USAF uniform (You may call it Style) your wearing the Uniform of the USAF Auxiliary and under the Command of the USAF while on an AFAM mission.
Exactly - the
uniform of the USAF Auxiliary, not the uniform of a USAF Captain. Per CAPR 60-3, CAP resources remains within the CAP at all times with the CAP IC or AL exercising full authority over all CAP personnel for matters pertaining to the mission - even AFAM. We don't fall under the Command of the USAF, we just get assigned missions - which we can turn down.
Quote from: wingnut on November 06, 2007, 04:33:17 AM
We may not be under the UCMJ, and not Commissioned, we are expected to conduct ourselves with the same customs and courtesies of a Military Officer, while in uniform.
No issue there. I will conduct myself with the same customs and courtesies of a Military Officer, in or out of uniform, until the day I die.
But this has nothing to do with a NCO Corps.
Quotethe USAF seem to be very concerned with making sure USAF personnel can tell the difference between the USAF and CAP
Actually it seems to be the other way around, Members such as you ShortField who want to see a difference so great that you can tell who's a USAF Officer from at least 500 paces away. I don't believe the Air Force is pushing us to have all that great a distinction, it's our own members. Not too many years ago our uniforms where ALMOST indistinguishable from a regular Air Force Officers uniform, and it may happen yet again in our future. None of us know what the future holds for us, the future takes many twists and turns along the way.
You may not believe that CAP is military or that CAP should be military and while technically true, we may not be. But I ask you this: How many other non-profit benevolent civilian organizations ever went to war against a foreign Nations military force? ? While CAP today may not be all that close to what we used to be we are still very much rooted in our beginnings as a military force.
Thread jack terminated.