HWSNBN and Harwell

[Storm Chaser]

Now, are all of those people required by the 20-1 really needed? Or has the world and the mission changed?
A review of all of the "required" positions is way overdue.

FWIW,  I think you're correct. The depth of the required positions pool might make more sense for full-time units; many probably aren't necessary any longer, or shouldn't require a dedicated officer/NCO. With a bit of objective review, some of the SAS might go away.

There are folks working hard, wearing multiple hats; just not sure all that work is worth doing, or perhaps not worth doing to the level of granularity as-is.

The Air Force, with considerable more resources than CAP, seems to approach its organization much more efficiently. Operational units have a minimum staff to meet operational and training requirements, with very little overhead (most of which are additional duties). Each Operations Group has an Operations Support Squadron that supports the other operational units (flying squadrons, etc.). Other support functions are provided by either the Mission Support Group or Wing staff.

To translate that into CAP, I think we could make better use of the limited resources we have by consolidating many of the support staff functions at Group and/or Wing and minimizing the overhead staff functions at the squadron level. Squadrons should have a minimum staff to allow them to train and execute the missions. Support functions should be kept to a minimum and performed only as additional duties. That means that many of the cumbersome requirements imposed on units would have to be rescinded and/or move to higher headquarters.

Bottom line, the Org Chart prescribed in CAPR 20-1 is archaic and inefficient, especially with the manning levels at most units. It should be adjusted in order to make us more efficient and able to meet the challenges we face today.

[Panache]

Bottom line, the Org Chart prescribed in CAPR 20-1 is archaic and inefficient, especially with the manning levels at most units. It should be adjusted in order to make us more efficient and able to meet the challenges we face today.

For example: does your average squadron really need two separate people for the PDO officer and Administrative officer?

[Eclipse]

The raw membership numbers are essentially useless without the "empty shirt filter" and "just punches safety once a month filter".

I also agree that 20-1 is unreasonable in the expectation of staff needed, especially at the unit level.
It reflects a 20-year old paper-pushing, manual image of CAP staffing.

With that said, the charter minimums are far too low, and whether or not 20-1 is too top heavy isn't really
relevent to the under manned and staffed discussion.

If a unit is at charter minimums for more then a year, they have already failed.

Any squadron with less then 25 members is failing.

To achieve the critical mass necessary for a self-sustaining existence, a unit needs at least 50
members on the books with at least 35 reasonably active.

Now, please point out the anecdotal "Senior Special OPS squadrons", etc., etc., that are the exceptions
to the "rule of 50".

[Storm Chaser]

Bottom line, the Org Chart prescribed in CAPR 20-1 is archaic and inefficient, especially with the manning levels at most units. It should be adjusted in order to make us more efficient and able to meet the challenges we face today.

For example: does your average squadron really need two separate people for the PDO officer and Administrative officer?

I would argue that the average squadron doesn't need an Administrative Officer at all. All our publications are online. Correspondence is done via e-mail. And since virtually everyone has a computer these days, merorandums, administrative authorizations, etc. are usually done by the commander or corresponding staff officer.

[SunDog]

The raw membership numbers are essentially useless without the "empty shirt filter" and "just punches safety once a month filter".

I also agree that 20-1 is unreasonable in the expectation of staff needed, especially at the unit level.
It reflects a 20-year old paper-pushing, manual image of CAP staffing.

With that said, the charter minimums are far too low, and whether or not 20-1 is too top heavy isn't really
relevent to the under manned and staffed discussion.

If a unit is at charter minimums for more then a year, they have already failed.

Any squadron with less then 25 members is failing.

To achieve the critical mass necessary for a self-sustaining existence, a unit needs at least 50
members on the books with at least 35 reasonably active.

Now, please point out the anecdotal "Senior Special OPS squadrons", etc., etc., that are the exceptions
to the "rule of 50".

Hmmmm. . .my sqdn has maybe 35 or so SM on the books. Maybe a dozen active? As in showing up semi-regularly. Four or five are heavy into CP.   Another four of us are surviving MPs (down from seven, likely heading for two).  Not really sure what the other SMs are doing - finance, I think. One does safety, as well. PDO is own initiative, really. And no one gets worked up over chasing the paper for a find credit, for example. You found it? Great! Let's go get a beer! I guess we're kinda bare-bones IRT SMs, but we are contrubuting aircrew to other squadrons - we lost our airplane a while back - apparently we flew it too much, and were over the five-MP limit - so we do help cover some SM volunteer hours for the wing.

CP is doing well - I hear about them getting out and participating, and there seem to be a couple dozen of them milling about when our meetings cross paths. The older ones seem smart, motivated, and in charge. At least a couple are officers now, though their rank insignia is still a mystery to me.

Anyway, we're well short of the totals you cited; are we already failed, or just on our way to failing?

[Eclipse]

On the way to failing, and probably one or two personalities away from shutting down.

There's no such thing as "flying an airplane too much" or being "over the MP limit", though the fact that the pilots
"aren't too concerned about chasing paper" might be a contributing factor.   An apathetic attitude about
what others are doing is a piece as well.

If you have 35 on the books and "maybe a dozen active" your CP is not "doing well".

[Storm Chaser]

We have 57 SM in our unit. Of those, 20-25 are fairly active and another 5-10 participate from time to time. And we still struggle to meet all the manning requirements in CAPR 20-1 and other applicable regulations. Many of us have to wear multiple hats at the squadron and at group (albeit some as assistants), just to ensure every program is running and every requirement is met. I can't even imagine how a small unit is supposed to do all this.

[Panache]

There's no such thing as "flying an airplane too much" or being "over the MP limit", though the fact that the pilots
"aren't too concerned about chasing paper" might be a contributing factor.   An apathetic attitude about
what others are doing is a piece as well.

I wish we were "flying an airplane too much."  The closest CAP aircraft to us is firmly in the grip of the GOBN pilot's club, who treats it as their own personal toy.

[NIN]

I wish we were "flying an airplane too much."  The closest CAP aircraft to us is firmly in the grip of the GOBN pilot's club, who treats it as their own personal toy.

Years ago, we got a plane after a lot of wrangling and flew the wheel pants off it.

Like 20-25+ hrs a month when other squadrons were reporting 5-10 hrs a month on their planes.  Schedule the plane, fly the plane. I had a group of pilots who were not afraid to drive to where the former "Flying Club" squadron was, before we were assigned the plane, and I was able to highlight that we were flying the heck out of a plane that was 45 minutes away.  (one month, we reported 20+ hrs of flying and the flight ops guy at wing was like "Thats impossible! It was at the other airport for maintenance for 2 weeks!" and then he looked and oh, hahaha, lookie: we were even flying it while it sat at the other airport waiting to come back)

The bottom line I always conveyed to my pilots: if we fly the plane, we keep it. If we don't, we lose it. That simple.

[Eclipse]

The bottom line I always conveyed to my pilots: if we fly the plane, we keep it. If we don't, we lose it. That simple.

Yep - and the best way to break the GOBN is fill up the calendar and fly it.

[JoeTomasone]

That being said, when it comes to customs and courtesies, if AD personnel were encouraged (but not required) to extend C&C to CAP officers, that would strike a balance between our civilian status and being a part of the Air Force team.   No, we aren't commissioned, fight the enemy, or fall under UCMJ; but we have missions that we perform at the behest of the Air Force, and we have lost members in those missions - and we do it not for money, but for love of service and country.   Is that not worthy of a modicum of respect?   And, quite frankly, I can imagine AD personnel choosing to dispense said respect to those CAP members they deem worthy - like, perhaps, those who wear the uniform properly and professionally, and don't act like a knucklehead.
</rant>

Opinions follow:


4.  Uniformed military personnel already have the option to render military courtesies to those who might not otherwise "rate" them.  It's just not often exercised.  If Big Blue informed every Airman tomorrow that they had the option to salute CAP officers, it's my opinion as a USAF retiree that most would opt out.  The Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force puts in over two decades of military service to get to the ultimate enlisted position, and he should be encouraged to render the ultimate military courtesy to a dues-paying volunteer?  Please.

5.  If CAP service is really all about service and country and mission, focus on those things and the people who matter will respect you for it.  If it's about getting military members to render military courtesies to you, a reexamination of priorities is in order.

Obviously you did not read what I wrote, missed my point entirely, or for whatever reason decided to color it with a "he is trolling for salutes" sentiment.   I'll simply leave it at that. 

[SunDog]

On the way to failing, and probably one or two personalities away from shutting down.

There's no such thing as "flying an airplane too much" or being "over the MP limit", though the fact that the pilots
"aren't too concerned about chasing paper" might be a contributing factor.   An apathetic attitude about
what others are doing is a piece as well.

If you have 35 on the books and "maybe a dozen active" your CP is not "doing well".

Oh, there are a LOT more than 12 cadets - several dozen, I beleive.  I meant we had about a dozen or so active SM's.  We've been on this level of "low simmer" for quite a while. . . but your observation about personalities rings true - we loose the wrong two or three SMs, especially in CP, and it could go south in a hurry. Not all our SMs are apathetic about the paper chase - the lack of concern about find credit, or who is doing the care-and-feeding of van usage reports is just me. My plate is kinda full, so those things don't get my attention.

Actually, I was joking about "flying too much" and "over the MP limit" - we were wearing the airplane out, and had more MPs in our sqdn than an adjoining Group had in total.  But the center of gravity for airplanes is the Wing HQ geo area.  We had five aircraft in our area at one time, and are now down to two.  Our annual early-summer reward for flying "too much" was to have our aircraft swapped with with someome else's tie-down queen. Not all bad, as at least an airplane was nearby. But once we lost ours, the Form 5 guys with MP ambitions drifted away, and are now slowly being followed by the MPs still in place.

I imagine our wing will lose (another) aircraft eventually, since we're 20% or so below the magic five MPs per aircraft.  Some sqdn not in the GOBN will be out of luck - pretty sure the main base at Wing won't be giving up any of their multiple aircraft.   Hey, it is what it is.  There had been some $$$ incentive to drive the added distance to fly CAP self-funded, but that marginal diffrence disappeared with the last maintenance rate increase.  Still can't beat CAP on funded missions, of course - we can sometimes borrow another sqdn's airplane for O rides or a funded training sortie.

So most of us are still flying as many (or more) hours - we just aren't flying them in CAP aircraft anymore.  It follows that interest and commitment wane a bit, attention starts to be placed elsewhere, and participation dwindles a bit.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Over the course of SunDog's membership here, all I'm hearing is that his focus is on flying. Preferably funded flying. I thought we had planes to do a mission, not just get the easiest way to get the cheapest way to build hours.

[Storm Chaser]

In order for aircrews to maintain operational readiness and proficiency, they need to fly frequently. That is also part of our mission.

[SunDog]

Over the course of SunDog's membership here, all I'm hearing is that his focus is on flying. Preferably funded flying. I thought we had planes to do a mission, not just get the easiest way to get the cheapest way to build hours.

So, Sir, you are shocked, shocked and dismayed, to realize a MP in the Civil AIR patrol is focused on flying? What a worthless cretin I be!

Seriously, I've no particular interest in building hours; and it is a rare funded event that takes much less than a day, even though you may only get 1.0 on the Hobbs. I'm here because I'm interested in the mission.  So I've put up with the SAS, the GOBN, the aircraft gerrymandering, etc. Funded flying might mean mission flying, one of the points of our existence - so yep, I like mission flying, and training for it.

If I just want generic proficency, I can skip the considerable hassle and much longer commute, drive to the flying club, fly 2.0, and be home for lunch. And for about the same (or less) out-of-pocket. 
My point, though not well articulated, was that we had a large pool of pilots in a particular geo area, whose prescense meant diddley-squat to the GOBN, and now our wing is down a plane, likely to lose another, and airplane drivers are looking elsewhere for their flying fix.

[Archer]

What exactly is this GOBN and why is it problematic? I know what the acronym stands for, but what's the issue and why hasn't it been fixed?

[Eclipse]

What exactly is this GOBN and why is it problematic? I know what the acronym stands for, but what's the issue and why hasn't it been fixed?

In far too many cases, the guys in it are the same leaders who are supposed to squash it, and until someone who cares enough to
start making people knock it off gets involved, it's pretty much a circular situation.

[lordmonar]

What exactly is this GOBN and why is it problematic? I know what the acronym stands for, but what's the issue and why hasn't it been fixed?

In far too many cases, the guys in it are the same leaders who are supposed to squash it, and until someone who cares enough to
start making people knock it off gets involved, it's pretty much a circular situation.

Also in far too many cases......it just does not exist.  At least as far as some people want to believe that it exists.

[Eclipse]

What exactly is this GOBN and why is it problematic? I know what the acronym stands for, but what's the issue and why hasn't it been fixed?

In far too many cases, the guys in it are the same leaders who are supposed to squash it, and until someone who cares enough to
start making people knock it off gets involved, it's pretty much a circular situation.

Also in far too many cases......it just does not exist.  At least as far as some people want to believe that it exists.

I actually agree - a lot of times what is viewed from the outside as "GOBN", is actually just standad procedure or people
not willing to make a second phone call.

"Not having someone drive the plane to your house..." isn't the same as "GOBN", same goes for any unit that doesn't have a
"plane, van, radio, L-Per", or whatever is hot this month.

The majority of units don't have a plane, yet those pilots find a way to fly. 

All of them have some standardized way to schedule it, and the wings have to follow the same qualification rules
across the board (mountain, Alaska, and other local training notwithstanding).

[SarDragon]

A big part of the perceived GOBN is the attitude among some units with planes, is that the plane :belongs" to that unit, and pilots from other units are not worthy to fly that plane. We used to have that situation in my group some years back, but a turnover in leadership has helped alleviate it. Another problem was an unwillingness for the pilots in that unit to fly real missions, instead reserving their participation to the exercises. Oh, and then there's the O-flight problem - "we don't like to fly those whiny, puking little kids."

It's a lot better now, but the GOBN is still very real in some places.