November NEC Meeting - NCO Corps

[ddelaney103]

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.

[JohnKachenmeister]

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.

[RiverAux]

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. 

[Robert Hartigan]

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.

[Trung Si Ma]

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.

[Eclipse]

We already have a professional development track designed for a member that is a manager/commander.

Which one is that?

[SarDragon]

RTFM. There ain't one.

NOTE: 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.

[Eclipse]

RTFM. There ain't one.

NOTE: 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!   

[JohnKachenmeister]

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.

[Dragoon]

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.

[Robert Hartigan]

RTFM. There ain't one.

NOTE: 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.

[CAP_truth]

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.

[ddelaney103]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[O-Rex]

I'd like to see a category in member reports to show command time: format would be similar to the one indicating encampments.

[Dragoon]

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)

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.

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.

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!

[RiverAux]

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.

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. 

[Grumpy]

releae

[SarDragon]

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.

[ddelaney103]

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.

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.