I have an idea. There has been talk of whether or not a college degree should be required for CAP officers. How about 2 years instead? I was looking on the New Mexico State Defense Force website (www.nmsg-mil.us), and their educational requirement for a commission is at least 2 years of college. Why not require the same for CAP officers?
The 2 years of college requirement may better-guarantee officers who are capable of thinking critically, since that is the object of college. I can see this as a cost-effective alternative to forming an Officer Training School for CAP, or something along those lines.
Community College fees are significantly lower than 4-year college/university fees and AA/AS degrees (or just 2 years of college) can usually be obtained easily through financial aid programs if sufficient funds are unavailable. Therefore, this would lessen the economic burden of having to pursue a bachelor's degree.
I can think of a lot of benefits in requiring all CAP officers to have at least 2 years of college before becoming eligible for a commission. This would include former cadets with Mitchell or higher. For former cadets in this category, I would propose the following:
Mitchell = FO
Earhart = TFO
Eaker/Spaatz = SFO
The New Mexico State Defense force also requires that officers grade 0-5 and above possess a bachelor's degree or higher, but I won't propose that for CAP (at least not now). However, I believe that requiring all CAP officers to have at least 2 years of college would be very advantageous.
In summary, requiring all CAP officers to have 2 years of college attained would produce officers who are better trained in critical thinking/more receptive to the CAP Level I training, reduce the financial burden of officer training programs other than Level I, and encourage all CAP officers to further their education.
A few random comments:
Under your proposal, would all non-college educated adults be NCO's?
If a 2-year degree is the primary requirement to become a CAP officer, what do you do with somebody who has a Ph.D.? Or several degrees? Make them a general?
How do you address the pilot problem? It is hard enough to get and keep pilots in CAP as it is. Not all CAP pilots have degrees. Do we make the job of recruiting and keeping pilots harder?
How do you address the "educated idiot" issue? There are many folks out there who have college degrees and are frankly unfit for command or to be a CAP officer. There are just as many folks out there who have little formal education who have made outstanding contributions to CAP and are fine leaders and officers.
What do you do with the CAP unit who finds itself in the difficult position of having no officers because nobody in the local unit has a degree?
I understand the sentiment behind your proposal, but it needs more development. Remember, in the military the requirement for a commission is not simply a degree, it is also successful completion of an officer training course of some kind. CAP should be no different.
Quote from: Guardrail on January 12, 2007, 05:56:17 AM
I have an idea. There has been talk of whether or not a college degree should be required for CAP officers. How about 2 years instead? I was looking on the New Mexico State Defense Force website (www.nmsg-mil.us), and their educational requirement for a commission is at least 2 years of college. Why not require the same for CAP officers?
Simple answer is that we are not the NM SDF.
Long answer is that the officer requirments for SDF units usually (but not always) mirror the NG requirments.
Quote from: Guardrail on January 12, 2007, 05:56:17 AM
The 2 years of college requirement may better-guarantee officers who are capable of thinking critically, since that is the object of college. I can see this as a cost-effective alternative to forming an Officer Training School for CAP, or something along those lines.
Not necessarrily true....both in theory and in practice. I know people with masters and Phd's that are not capable of critical thinking. Secondly...while in a target age group...having a degree or not may have a bearing on your ability to lead and absorbt the required training. It does not apply to 40 and over crowd that is our usual recruits.
Quote from: Guardrail on January 12, 2007, 05:56:17 AM
Community College fees are significantly lower than 4-year college/university fees and AA/AS degrees (or just 2 years of college) can usually be obtained easily through financial aid programs if sufficient funds are unavailable. Therefore, this would lessen the economic burden of having to pursue a bachelor's degree.
As if someone would go out to get a degree so they can join CAP.
Quote from: Guardrail on January 12, 2007, 05:56:17 AM
I can think of a lot of benefits in requiring all CAP officers to have at least 2 years of college before becoming eligible for a commission.
Except as a excusioniar gatekeeper....it is simply an arbitrary standard. Having an AA degree in no way shape or form makes you a better officer. It is not an indicator of your abilities and is simply exclusionary.
Let's take for example my father. 22 year veterain of the USAF, retired as a Lt Col. Thousands of flying hours as a Navigator. Ran a state park in Western Arkansas with 60-100 employees, managed milions of dollars in assets and sales. Managed a 60 room hotel on the park grounds and was a certified state law enforment officer. He was an officer of the volunteer fire department.
Pretty cool! Yes. No degree. Not even an AA in basket weaving. Dropped out of college in 59. Got drafted in 60...but was able to go into the USAF as an aviation cadet.
A college degree has nothing to do with your ability to lead. I myself did not get my AA degree until 2000 and finished by BA in '05. By your reasoning I was unfit to be an officer.
Yes....in certain situations (like deciding if it is worth spending money on a new recruit) using a college degree is a useful gate keeper. In a CAP application it will only mean about 80% of your SM will not be able to join.
So weigh that in your matrix. Is having a "more professional" officer core worth loosing 80% of your personnel?
And also chew on this....no matter how closely we model our officer selction and training programs after the USAF.....we will still not earn their respect. We will still always be a second class citezen to them. Yes they may let us join the O-Club and maybe they may not begrudge the salute....but we are still only part time civilians playing at military to them.
Quote from: Guardrail on January 12, 2007, 05:56:17 AMIn summary, requiring all CAP officers to have 2 years of college attained would produce officers who are better trained in critical thinking/more receptive to the CAP Level I training, reduce the financial burden of officer training programs other than Level I, and encourage all CAP officers to further their education.
Well listen....level I training does not require any sort of degree to be receptive...in fact, level I training was so mind numbingly boring back when I took it 1985, I would have said it was a complete waste of time.
Secondly...what fincanical burden of the officer training programs? Printing up a bunch of manuals for your old style level I maybe cost a whopping $2 per student! Come one. That one is a real stretch.
And finaly....if I wanted to be an officer so bad that I went to college just to join CAP....instead of a the real military....I thing I got more serious problems than lack of education and I don't think I would be the type of person I want in CAP.
YMMV....but any gate keeper that requres and aribitrary degree is just a waste of time. It will force away a lot of good people...not make the already good people we have better.
Creating good officers is a function of mentoring and training....not selection and gatekeeping.
well, I been taking a break from this line of thought, but I'll try to get back in the mix...
What I recommended was the requirement be a BA, BUT that waivers be readily available for 60hrs/associates AND EITHER prior-service/EMT/Pilot/FCC ham/ A&P/accounting/etc/2-years supervisory work experience applicable to a staff role.
I think that's reasonable. It's basically the standard to enter NG OCS (not to graduate). It gives creedance to our current special skills appointment system while reeling it back into practical reality. Yeah I think that's a pretty good standard. A degree doesn't certify you as smart, but it certifies you as not retarded. You think I'm kidding around when I say that, but I LITERALLY have a senior member came w/ a package deal on two cadets before I got there that I swear fell off the short bus head first, and I don't mean in the figurative or just a little sense. I mean the "have you seen my basebal?" sense of the phrase, but what can I do other than refuse to promote him to 2Lt, and open up to complaints over why? Especially since we decided the ADA is a good thing.
Before I go on, there’s a few things I think I should point out.
1. I don’t propose anything beyond 2 years of college for all CAP officers. Not sure where the degree issue came from.
2. I don’t believe a degree is required to be a good officer. Capt Harris’ example of his father is an excellent one, and he makes a good point.
3. This is just an idea. No advocacy involved, no forcing my opinion on anyone else. No need for anyone to get wound up over this.
It comes from my much previous proposal that's in the works. With no offense to anyone's fatehr, you do understand the professional standards have continually & exponentially raised over the years in the AF, especially in the last 20 years, yes? Older officers, like the one referred to, were grandfatehred in. Does that mean it requires a degree to be a good officer, certainly not, BUT it stops the litterally stupid from putting together a good resume & making the cut. College is a good gatekeeper. The military has thought so for a long time, and there's a reason for that, several actually.
Please look at what I said though. I'm not saying a degree wither. I said meet one of these two requirements, degree OR 2 years w/ extra qual or experience that applies to CAP (meaning other than bagging goceries). Once the educational standard is met (degree or almost automatic waiver on defined rules), no advantage is given one way or the other. It's still competitive from there based on an interview, written statement, and letters of recommendation. Obviously the goal being to weed out REAL officer material from not so much, on a competitive basis for alimited number of slots.
I understand you're starting from an outside basis & working your way in on a single factor, but we've been here already & reached concensus on a set of standards. I respect your opinions & appreciate anything you can do to help us justify these standards, but we're there already on what's going up.
Guardrail:
You might want to check out "Clarification of Officer Qualifications in the New CAP," since this has been beat around more than a soccer ball at an Irish-English match.
Looking at other officer accession programs is a valid method of comparison, and a starting point to consider and discuss modifying our program.
I would add this, however. College cannot replace the idea of an OTS. College teaches one thing, OTS teaches another. Plus the process of going through OTS is a bonding experience with your classmates, and begins the proces of networking.
Plus you can't have cadets knowing more about D&C then their officers.
What you are going to see in this thread (and others like it) are everyone voting for the option that gives them what they want and excludes everyone else.
People with college degrees want that to be the standard. People without them don't.
People whose jobs let them take two weeks off at the drop of the hat will favor mandatory attendance at a two week OTS. People who work retail will fight it.
People who are pilots will want aviators to get command preference for units with airplanes. Ground pounders will claim that being a pilot doesn't matter for commanding aviation units.
Thin guys want to everyone to meet weight standards. Overweight folks claim it doesn't matter.
The list goes on and on.
What it really comes down to is that everyone wants the standards set low enough so that they can jump all the bars, but no lower. After all, how can anyone be special if everyone is special? And we all want to be special.
I have no idea how to fix this. I can't wait for someone to say "even though I'll never make the grade, I think the standards should be set here."
How about no! Why is college necessary? I spent the majority of my college days playing cadet in ROTC and partying. It was only something I HAD to do to get a commission. I would have skipped college if I could have still been an officer. I have yet to use my degree for anything. Good thing Uncle Sam payed for my time there or I would never have. I can say confidently that there are many people who are smarter, brighter, and function better in society than I do, but yet did not go to college.
The whole college/ university thing is over rated and designed to keep the underprivileged down and make it harder for them to find better paying jobs!
I will say that college was fun but shouldn't go any further than that or you may think poorly of me.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 12, 2007, 02:26:14 PM
I would add this, however. College cannot replace the idea of an OTS. College teaches one thing, OTS teaches another. Plus the process of going through OTS is a bonding experience with your classmates, and begins the proces of networking.
I'm glad someone mentioned this. I think the same thing applies to the military, but that's my opinion. I worked in comm in the AF and I had one commander that had a degree in
chemistry. Another had an engineering degree, with no real experience in communications. The military doesn't seem to use peoples' educational backgrounds, we don't need a similar program for a volunteer organization.
I think an OTS course is what CAP requires. The miltary may accede officers because they have degrees, but they still require an in-residence attendance. There are things that must be learned that college won't teach you.
Quote
Plus you can't have cadets knowing more about D&C then their officers.
I would modify this to say "You
shouldn't have cadets knowing more about D&C....". In many cases, this is already an established fact. It is in my unit.
Quote from: Dragoon on January 12, 2007, 03:08:31 PM
What you are going to see in this thread (and others like it) are everyone voting for the option that gives them what they want and excludes everyone else.
...........
I have no idea how to fix this. I can't wait for someone to say "even though I'll never make the grade, I think the standards should be set here."
I won't say that I would never make the grade, but I would probably consider attending an OTS course. I would make an effort to attend, or at least "audit" any new officer training courses, so I'm familiar with it's contents. Even if those requirements didn't apply to me. It would put me on the same page as the newer officers.
And honestly, there are things that some of us may strive for, that we know we probably won't make. Not everyone will be a wing commander, but it may still be a goal.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 12, 2007, 02:26:14 PM
College cannot replace the idea of an OTS. College teaches one thing, OTS teaches another. Plus the process of going through OTS is a bonding experience with your classmates, and begins the process of networking.
Plus you can't have cadets knowing more about D&C then their officers.
Agreed. An OTS type of solution is needed as well.
In order to improve the officer corps and the organization as a whole, the bar needs to be raised. It's as simple as that.
The proposed addition of
both a degree requirement (4 years or 2 year with a waiver) along with an OTS solution to be eligible for CAP officer appointments is a very welcome one, and much needed (long overdue).
This would require the reinstatement of enlisted ranks and that is very welcome as well.
Such changes will help to better define the organization and adds legitimacy to what we're doing. Keep in mind, the Air Force (along with all the other services, so far as I'm aware) requires a 4-year degree as part of the basic eligibility requirement for officers. There are many more reasons for us to do so than there are for us not to do so.
If this means some members leave, then so be it (quality over quantity). However, if we were more professional as a whole, I strongly suspect that we'd attract higher quality members and the membership situation would actually improve some. I think there are a sizable number of potential members that are put off by the amatuer-hour nature of some squadrons. As a whole the organization will benefit dramatically.
I'm all for people getting a higher education, but I'm not sure it should be a CAP requirement. After all, many of our members are well into their 40's and beyond. I don't think it would be fair to require them to have some college. (I have a degree, so it doesn't concern me.)
The military requires degree (bachelor degree to get beyond Captain I think). But, one benefit for a degree is that it requires four years of the person's life, giving him four more years of experience and maturity. And I can see that. For the most part, I wouldn't want some 18 year old fresh out of high school leading me into combat.
Most of CAP's members have a lot of years under their belt.
Quote from: davedove on January 12, 2007, 05:56:31 PM
I'm all for people getting a higher education, but I'm not sure it should be a CAP requirement.
Not a CAP requirement - an officer requirement.
Quote from: A.Member on January 12, 2007, 05:59:12 PM
Quote from: davedove on January 12, 2007, 05:56:31 PM
I'm all for people getting a higher education, but I'm not sure it should be a CAP requirement.
Not a CAP requirement - an officer requirement.
Yeah, but right now all seniors are officers.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 12, 2007, 02:26:14 PM
Guardrail:
You might want to check out "Clarification of Officer Qualifications in the New CAP," since this has been beat around more than a soccer ball at an Irish-English match.
Looking at other officer accession programs is a valid method of comparison, and a starting point to consider and discuss modifying our program.
Agreed, sir. Question: are you in favor of both 2 yrs. college and OTS for new CAP officers, or just OTS?
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 12, 2007, 02:26:14 PMI would add this, however. College cannot replace the idea of an OTS. College teaches one thing, OTS teaches another. Plus the process of going through OTS is a bonding experience with your classmates, and begins the proces of networking.
Plus you can't have cadets knowing more about D&C then their officers.
This is true. I think a great starting point is to look at how Iowa Wing created their OTS, and see how it could be replicated nation-wide.
Quote from: davedove on January 12, 2007, 06:01:48 PMYeah, but right now all seniors are officers.
No, there are also senior member NCO's.
Quote from: Guardrail on January 12, 2007, 06:46:20 PM
Quote from: davedove on January 12, 2007, 06:01:48 PMYeah, but right now all seniors are officers.
No, there are also senior member NCO's.
Yes but that option is only open to those CAP members who were real life NCOs in the past. You joe off the street
MUST become an officer (for the purposes of this rant SMWOG is an officer).
Quote from: davedove on January 12, 2007, 06:01:48 PM
Yeah, but right now all seniors are officers.
Thus, the reinstatement of enlisted ranks for adult members. It solves the issue quite nicely.
Quote from: A.Member on January 12, 2007, 07:26:57 PM
Quote from: davedove on January 12, 2007, 06:01:48 PM
Yeah, but right now all seniors are officers.
Thus, the reinstatement of enlisted ranks for adult members. It solves the issue quite nicely.
Sorry, to be blunt, but you gonna pony up the funding to do that? It would take money that we don't have. So it doesn't get solved "quite nicely".
It's easy enough to accomodate prior service NCOs. They are already
trained as NCOs. Bringing in a new enlisted progression program will cost us in many ways. Ways that we don't have the resources to support.
In what ways would reinstating enlisted grades for senior members be a burden financially? I don't doubt it, just wondering what the costs would be.
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 12, 2007, 08:15:56 PM
Quote from: A.MemberThus, the reinstatement of enlisted ranks for adult members. It solves the issue quite nicely.
Sorry, to be blunt, but you gonna pony up the funding to do that? It would take money that we don't have. So it doesn't get solved "quite nicely".
It's easy enough to accomodate prior service NCOs. They are already trained as NCOs. Bringing in a new enlisted progression program will cost us in many ways. Ways that we don't have the resources to support.
No need to apologize...
But what need for funding are you referring to? The need for additional funding is nearly non-existant. It's reorganizing the rank structure. Rather than entering as a SM (without rank/grade), new members would enter as an E-1. As they progress through various training, they earn higher ranks and greater responsibility. Aside from creating new enlisted ranks insignias (which is no big deal because members end up paying for these items anyway) what else do you have?
Training manuals and documents are in need of revision anyway, thus, the timing is perfect. Developing standards for a new rank progression is not overly difficult.
Quote from: davedove on January 12, 2007, 05:56:31 PM
The military requires degree (bachelor degree to get beyond Captain I think). But, one benefit for a degree is that it requires four years of the person's life, giving him four more years of experience and maturity. And I can see that. For the most part, I wouldn't want some 18 year old fresh out of high school leading me into combat.
Most of Cap's members have a lot of years under their belt.
Funny you say that, I have met a lot of 18 year olds that are more mature and have better leadership ability than a 22 year old 2LT. There are 18 year old lieutenants in the Army Reserve right now. They came out of the ROTC Early Commissioning Program, which requires them to get an associate degree, commission, join a reserve unit and complete their BA/BS degree. ROTC (by a different name then) in high schools years ago commissioned graduating high school seniors. However this was changed shortly after 1920.
College/ University requirements should not be brought into CAP. Instead lets bring back the program from the 1940's that trained Cadets to be CAP Officers. Make the "wait six months for 2nd Lt" thing disappear. Every new adult that joins will be a Senior Member for a whole year. During that time they will attend their local meetings and complete specific educational tasks locally. They will be assigned to a mentor in their SQD that will guide them through the year long process. After 1 year, they get 2nd Lt and their National dues are waived for the second year! Almost like a reward.
Quote from: Guardrail on January 12, 2007, 08:32:26 PM
In what ways would reinstating enlisted grades for senior members be a burden financially? I don't doubt it, just wondering what the costs would be.
So a Senior Member goes to an NCO academy instead of a Region Staff College...I don't see much of an additional burden.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 12, 2007, 08:42:08 PMSo a Senior Member goes to an NCO academy instead of a Region Staff College...I don't see much of an additional burden.
Well, creating a National NCO Academy would be a financial burden, if the funds aren't available.
Quote from: Guardrail on January 12, 2007, 08:44:47 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 12, 2007, 08:42:08 PMSo a Senior Member goes to an NCO academy instead of a Region Staff College...I don't see much of an additional burden.
Well, creating a National NCO Academy would be a financial burden, if the funds aren't available.
Make it an element of and in conjunction with the Region Staff College. Share costs. Or better yet, charge the full price for tuition for an NCO academy. This would mean only the most dedicated Senior would try to be an NCO. facilities...it is only prohibitive if you make it so.
Quote from: Guardrail on January 12, 2007, 06:36:25 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 12, 2007, 02:26:14 PM
Guardrail:
You might want to check out "Clarification of Officer Qualifications in the New CAP," since this has been beat around more than a soccer ball at an Irish-English match.
Looking at other officer accession programs is a valid method of comparison, and a starting point to consider and discuss modifying our program.
Agreed, sir. Question: are you in favor of both 2 yrs. college and OTS for new CAP officers, or just OTS?
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 12, 2007, 02:26:14 PMI would add this, however. College cannot replace the idea of an OTS. College teaches one thing, OTS teaches another. Plus the process of going through OTS is a bonding experience with your classmates, and begins the proces of networking.
Plus you can't have cadets knowing more about D&C then their officers.
This is true. I think a great starting point is to look at how Iowa Wing created their OTS, and see how it could be replicated nation-wide.
Guardrail:
The short version of my proposal is:
Commissioned grade requires BS/BA degree. A selection board MAY waiver that requirement if an applicant has either AA/AS degree, 2 years of college toward a BA/BS, a private or higher pilot rating, or 6 months full time vocational training. I'm looking for someone with the brains and the fortitude to finish what they start. Lots of people take a few college courses, get into the partying, and never finish their freshman year.
Flight Officer grades (W-1 thru W-5) would be available to anybody falling short of the commissioned grade requirements. Flight officers would not be able to command units above squadrons, but could do any other officer job.
Commissioned and flight officers attend the same OTS and have the same PD requirements, except the FO's are fully-qualified at Level 4.
NCO grades would be limited to prior-service NCO's who opt to remain NCO's.
A new class of enlisted members would be created, with unit-level training and duties, and promotions automatic to a maximum grade of SrA. This would be at the member's option, for the "Soccer Mom" members who join with their cadets and just want to help out driving and escorting cadets around the local unit. This replaces the Polo-Shirt members who do this now.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 12, 2007, 08:42:08 PM
Quote from: Guardrail on January 12, 2007, 08:32:26 PM
In what ways would reinstating enlisted grades for senior members be a burden financially? I don't doubt it, just wondering what the costs would be.
So a Senior Member goes to an NCO academy instead of a Region Staff College...I don't see much of an additional burden.
OK, tell you what. You get to write the NCO academy course. Keep in mind you have to include all leadership materials related to NCO's. You can't just relabel officer material. And it should be as in depth as RSC is. Just to make sure that they're receiving the same quality as RSC.
Oh, yeah, I forgot. You should be able to put together most of the enlisted progression program structure.
My point? Revamping the officer program would be far easier than essentially creating a double size program (which revamping officers, and creating enlisted would be). I think that prior service NCO's should have some progression options, but I don't think that we need an all new enlisted program. Let's fix our current problems before we go creating new ones.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 12, 2007, 08:57:27 PM
The short version of my proposal is:
Commissioned grade requires BS/BA degree. A selection board MAY waiver that requirement if an applicant has either AA/AS degree, 2 years of college toward a BA/BS, a private or higher pilot rating, or 6 months full time vocational training. I'm looking for someone with the brains and the fortitude to finish what they start. Lots of people take a few college courses, get into the partying, and never finish their freshman year.
Flight Officer grades (W-1 thru W-5) would be available to anybody falling short of the commissioned grade requirements. Flight officers would not be able to command units above squadrons, but could do any other officer job.
Commissioned and flight officers attend the same OTS and have the same PD requirements, except the FO's are fully-qualified at Level 4.
NCO grades would be limited to prior-service NCO's who opt to remain NCO's.
A new class of enlisted members would be created, with unit-level training and duties, and promotions automatic to a maximum grade of SrA. This would be at the member's option, for the "Soccer Mom" members who join with their cadets and just want to help out driving and escorting cadets around the local unit. This replaces the Polo-Shirt members who do this now.
I agree with the officer portion. Not sure I buy into the need for the FO's. Seems we could do away with FO's as well. Why not just have a truly "enlisted" category and allow progression up through NCO grades? The NCO grades do not have to be held exclusively for prior service NCOs (afterall, we don't treat prior service officer grades any differently).
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 12, 2007, 09:04:41 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 12, 2007, 08:42:08 PM
Quote from: Guardrail on January 12, 2007, 08:32:26 PM
In what ways would reinstating enlisted grades for senior members be a burden financially? I don't doubt it, just wondering what the costs would be.
So a Senior Member goes to an NCO academy instead of a Region Staff College...I don't see much of an additional burden.
OK, tell you what. You get to write the NCO academy course. Keep in mind you have to include all leadership materials related to NCO's. You can't just relabel officer material. And it should be as in depth as RSC is. Just to make sure that they're receiving the same quality as RSC.
Oh, yeah, I forgot. You should be able to put together most of the enlisted progression program structure.
My point? Revamping the officer program would be far easier than essentially creating a double size program (which revamping officers, and creating enlisted would be). I think that prior service NCO's should have some progression options, but I don't think that we need an all new enlisted program. Let's fix our current problems before we go creating new ones.
This confirms my suspicion that we may not really need an NCO corps. Merely let them carry on from their current rank with a promotion mechanism.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 12, 2007, 09:20:08 PM
This confirms my suspicion that we may not really need an NCO corps. Merely let them carry on from their current rank with a promotion mechanism.
I like Major Kachenmeister's plan, which is to allow only military NCO's into the CAP's NCO corps, but allow civilian senior members who elect to be enlisted the option to do so only up to SrA.
That way, those who are CSM's, senior members who mainly transport cadets around, and those who do other jobs that most junior enlisteds in the military do can do so and not be 'extra baggage' in the squadron.
As far as letting prior-enlisted senior members a mechanism to promote within CAP as an NCO, I like that. Question is, how?
Quote from: Guardrail on January 12, 2007, 09:39:30 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 12, 2007, 09:20:08 PM
This confirms my suspicion that we may not really need an NCO corps. Merely let them carry on from their current rank with a promotion mechanism.
I like Major Kachenmeister's plan, which is to allow only military NCO's into the CAP's NCO corps, but allow civilian senior members who elect to be enlisted the option to do so only up to SrA.
That way, those who are CSM's, senior members who mainly transport cadets around, and those who do other jobs that most junior enlisteds in the military do can do so and not be 'extra baggage' in the squadron.
As far as letting prior-enlisted senior members a mechanism to promote within CAP as an NCO, I like that. Question is, how?
I agree with John's plan although I have not said much about it here. It is sound.
As for a promotion mechinism for NCOs being an issue, let me remind the populace that CAP rank is an internal functionality. Thus, I see no problem with a Prior Service NCO who was at one RANK be promoted to another within CAP. It would not change that person's status as a Veteran or the like. It woudl diminish the current honor paid to NCOs.
In any structure where a CAP NCO was to be promoted I think one would have to modify the insignia of the NCO. Maybe the "tri-prop and triangle" in the center of the chevron. Why, because they are no longer being honored for tehir position as a former NCO. One can't have it both ways (Goose/Gander issue).
I can see VANGAURD LICKING its CHOPS as we type at the thought of selling CAP distinctive NCO rank... :-*
Remember this is all flight of fancy.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 12, 2007, 09:47:29 PM
In any structure where a CAP NCO was to be promoted I think one would have to modify the insignia of the NCO. Maybe the "tri-prop and triangle" in the center of the chevron.
Nice idea, but I don't think it would fly with the Air Force. It would look too much like the current Air Force enlisted grade insignia (at least on the service dress). I've thought of this too, and I think it would look great. But from a distance, it would be hard to distinguish from CAP and Air Force.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 12, 2007, 09:47:29 PMI can see VANGAURD LICKING its CHOPS as we type at the thought of selling CAP distinctive NCO rank... :-*
Remember this is all flight of fancy.
Yes sir, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some folks from Vanguard reading this right now. ::)
Another problem with gate keeper requirments. Is that you lock out a large portion of your membership from leadership positions. No matter how qualified the guy is..how much leadership/management ability he has or how much experince he has with CAP....he cannot command.
It is simple as that.
So you have some guy who can manage multi-million dollar companies with hundreds of employees but you tell him he can't manage a squadron with one plane, one van, $60K of comm gear and 50 members.
Is this really a smart use of our primary resource...our people?
So I go back to my orginal statement. any attempt to improve CAP officers with a gate keeper requirement is not in our best intrests.
BTW...I have both a AS and BA degree so it would not effect me either way.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 12, 2007, 10:23:14 PM
So you have some guy who can manage multi-million dollar companies with hundreds of employees but you tell him he can't manage a squadron with one plane, one van, $60K of comm gear and 50 members.
I'm sure you'd be one of the first to admit that the likelihood of encountering such a situation is remote at best. Certainly much more the exception than the rule. Just as with the "real" Air Force, if we wanted, a waiver could be justified for those rare cases. I doubt it would be all that necessary however.
I've come to realize that requiring 2 years of college for all CAP officers (or degrees for that matter) would be a better idea if we had some sort of enlisted structure like the one for the cadet program. Then the gate keeper requirements would make more sense.
Quote from: Guardrail on January 12, 2007, 08:32:26 PM
In what ways would reinstating enlisted grades for senior members be a burden financially? I don't doubt it, just wondering what the costs would be.
Let's see...design and implementation of an adult NCO training program--for starters. This would require a complete redesign of the entire "adult" program in CAP into two tracks--officers and NCO's. Then you'll have to design a crossover curriculum for those who decide later on to become officers after 20 years of membership, and may want to consider a curriculum for the reverse.
In terms of simply hours, you're talking about a minimum of a couple thousand person-hours involved in the development and testing of a completely new curriculum for CAP NCO's. That probably means putting the National staff on the job full-time for a year or so as well as hiring additional experts on NCO programs at National.
And, the curriculum must be robust. It must offer to a CAP member a meaningful program as a volunteer, not just a "that's how it's done in the USAF, so it's good enough here."
Then we need to add the propeller/triangle in some fashion to the NCO insignia in a manner that will distinguish it from USAF and cadet NCO insignia.
Then we have to re-write almost every CAP regulation, pamphlet and manual to add adult NCO's where appropriate.
I project the minimum cost to CAP to implement a meaningful adult NCO program at $750,000 and probably more. Of course, this is amortized over a period of time, but still, it would represent a significant cost to CAP.
And that does not count the cost of development of the new officer program.
Quote from: A.Member on January 12, 2007, 10:31:38 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 12, 2007, 10:23:14 PM
So you have some guy who can manage multi-million dollar companies with hundreds of employees but you tell him he can't manage a squadron with one plane, one van, $60K of comm gear and 50 members.
I'm sure you'd be one of the first to admit that the likelihood of encountering such a situation is remote at best. Certainly much more the exception than the rule. Just as with the "real" Air Force, if we wanted, a waiver could be justified for those rare cases. I doubt it would be all that necessary however.
There are at least four such people in my squadron right now. Also I am a 20 year USAF NCO...I know hundreds of NCOs (not just SNCOs) who were much more capable of leading a small squadron while we all know there are lots of 1st and 2nd Lts who need maps and a cheat sheet to make to the bathroom on time.
Improving the quality of our officers is a good thing. But lets do thing to improve what we have and not just put up artifical road blocks.
That is poor resource manangement.
Quote from: JamesG5223 on January 12, 2007, 10:44:24 PM
Quote from: Guardrail on January 12, 2007, 08:32:26 PM
In what ways would reinstating enlisted grades for senior members be a burden financially? I don't doubt it, just wondering what the costs would be.
Let's see...design and implementation of an adult NCO training program--for starters. This would require a complete redesign of the entire “adult” program in CAP into two tracks--officers and NCO’s. Then you’ll have to design a crossover curriculum for those who decide later on to become officers after 20 years of membership, and may want to consider a curriculum for the reverse.
In terms of simply hours, you’re talking about a minimum of a couple thousand person-hours involved in the development and testing of a completely new curriculum for CAP NCO’s. That probably means putting the National staff on the job full-time for a year or so as well as hiring additional experts on NCO programs at National.
And, the curriculum must be robust. It must offer to a CAP member a meaningful program as a volunteer, not just a “that’s how it’s done in the USAF, so it’s good enough here.”
Then we need to add the propeller/triangle in some fashion to the NCO insignia in a manner that will distinguish it from USAF and cadet NCO insignia.
Then we have to re-write almost every CAP regulation, pamphlet and manual to add adult NCO’s where appropriate.
I project the minimum cost to CAP to implement a meaningful adult NCO program at $750,000 and probably more. Of course, this is amortized over a period of time, but still, it would represent a significant cost to CAP.
And that does not count the cost of development of the new officer program.
Ah...so your saying this sort of cost is only justified when its about a uniform item like the MAJCOM patch...eh ;)
Just kidding...in any case, I don't think NOCs are gonna make it into CAP any time soon in any ohter form than the
status quo. And if they are "sprung" prematurely it will be the latest fiasco.
No, this needs to be thought out totally and, if there are to be NCOs in a capacity remotely close to what many of us have described...it would be criminal to proceed in a haphazzard manner. The waste of money on teh order of 700,000 or more would buy lots of air craft radios and cloth losts of cadets.
Quote from: JamesG5223 on January 12, 2007, 10:44:24 PM
Quote from: Guardrail on January 12, 2007, 08:32:26 PM
In what ways would reinstating enlisted grades for senior members be a burden financially? I don't doubt it, just wondering what the costs would be.
Let's see...design and implementation of an adult NCO training program--for starters. This would require a complete redesign of the entire "adult" program in CAP into two tracks officers and NCO's. Then you'll have to design a crossover curriculum for those who decide later on to become officers after 20 years of membership, and may want to consider a curriculum for the reverse.
In terms of simply hours, you're talking about a minimum of a couple thousand person-hours involved in the development and testing of a completely new curriculum for CAP NCO's. That probably means putting the National staff on the job full-time for a year or so as well as hiring additional experts on NCO programs at National.
And, the curriculum must be robust. It must offer to a CAP member a meaningful program as a volunteer, not just a "that's how it's done in the USAF, so it's good enough here."
Then we need to add the propeller/triangle in some fashion to the NCO insignia in a manner that will distinguish it from USAF and cadet NCO insignia.
Then we have to re-write almost every CAP regulation, pamphlet and manual to add adult NCO's where appropriate.
I project the minimum cost to CAP to implement a meaningful adult NCO program at $750,000 and probably more. Of course, this is amortized over a period of time, but still, it would represent a significant cost to CAP.
Thanks, Lt Col Garlough. This helps put the budget issue in perspective.
Sir, what do you think about Major Kachenmeister's idea of keeping the NCO program the way it is but allowing civilians to join at AB and be able to go up to SrA? This would allow those officers who join primarily to drive cadets around and do other jobs most junior enlisteds to do, or join to support a cadet in the program, to do so without being 'extra baggage' in the squadron officer corps.
Also, Maj Caralles suggested that there be some sort of way for military NCOs who join CAP as NCOs to be able to promote through the NCO grades within CAP. Do you envision a cost-effective way to do this?
Quote from: Guardrail on January 12, 2007, 10:54:50 PMAlso, Maj Caralles suggested that there be some sort of way for military NCOs who join CAP as NCOs to be able to promote through the NCO grades within CAP. Do you envision a cost-effective way to do this?
I thought the general consensus was that advanced promotions were bad?
Quote from: lordmonar on January 12, 2007, 10:51:46 PM
Quote from: A.Member on January 12, 2007, 10:31:38 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 12, 2007, 10:23:14 PM
So you have some guy who can manage multi-million dollar companies with hundreds of employees but you tell him he can't manage a squadron with one plane, one van, $60K of comm gear and 50 members.
I'm sure you'd be one of the first to admit that the likelihood of encountering such a situation is remote at best. Certainly much more the exception than the rule. Just as with the "real" Air Force, if we wanted, a waiver could be justified for those rare cases. I doubt it would be all that necessary however.
There are at least four such people in my squadron right now...
You know 4 people in your squadron that manage multi-million dollar corporations and hundreds of employees yet have not completed college? That's quite an anomaly. Most of the NCO's I know, particularly the senior ones, have 4-year degrees as well. You're evidence to this.
Quote from: JamesG5223 on January 12, 2007, 10:44:24 PM
I project the minimum cost to CAP to implement a meaningful adult NCO program at $750,000 and probably more. Of course, this is amortized over a period of time, but still, it would represent a significant cost to CAP.
That's quite a SWAG, if I've ever seen one.
Just to throw an alternative thought out there......
More or less (i.e., Cadet Squadron vs. Senior Squadron w/ airplane), a squadron commander is to CAP what a Scoutmaster is to the Boy Scouts. The span of control is very similar and depending upon the unit in either organization, the amount of equipment the "boss" manages could be large or small.
(Now of course folks are going to try and say "yeah but....what about CAP officers do this whereas Scoutmasters do that." It works the other way as well so let's do our best to forego that line of thought if possible, please...)
It'll be a cold day when the 4H, the BSA, the CAP, or the (pick your favorite community service volunteer org) requires a degree of any person chosen to lead....especially locally. The requirements for all of these volunteer deals boil down to some very similar criteria and that's just how it has to be:
--some moral standard
--120/80 or thereabouts, ideally
--availability
--A, B, AB, or O with Rh factor to suit
--can he or she spell and perhaps even, use a stamp to mail things occasionally?
Everything else is gravy, like it or not (and in most cases, I don't like it.)
I admire the forethought and the vigor of those that want to make a CAP officer (or maybe NCOs too) virtually identically to his/her Geneva Conventions-abiding model from the Armed Forces. I really do! But when we remove the heartstrings, does anybody really think that AAs/ASs or higher will ever become a requirement for a volunteer in a volunteer gig to do something more than wash airplanes or march around parking lots? I don't think so, personally. Does anybody really think that some of the AWESOME plans I've seen here on CAPtalk will come to fruition? I don't...
Unless your CAP turns on a smaller dime than my CAP, things hardly change until the well-intentioned "in-it-for-life" members change out through attrition or perhaps even, some late-90s-esque means of forced change....
Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 13, 2007, 01:19:03 AMI admire the forethought and the vigor of those that want to make a CAP officer (or maybe NCOs too) virtually identically to his/her Geneva Conventions-abiding model from the Armed Forces. I really do! But when we remove the heartstrings, does anybody really think that AAs/ASs or higher will ever become a requirement for a volunteer in a volunteer gig to do something more than wash airplanes or march around parking lots?
Well sir, SDF's are volunteer organizations (and military, no less) and (at least the NM SDF) requires all officers to have at least 2 years of college before commissioning. They do a lot more than wash airplanes and march around parking lots. A good example can be found at: http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/airsupport1.htm
Quote from: Guardrail on January 13, 2007, 01:32:49 AM
Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 13, 2007, 01:19:03 AMI admire the forethought and the vigor of those that want to make a CAP officer (or maybe NCOs too) virtually identically to his/her Geneva Conventions-abiding model from the Armed Forces. I really do! But when we remove the heartstrings, does anybody really think that AAs/ASs or higher will ever become a requirement for a volunteer in a volunteer gig to do something more than wash airplanes or march around parking lots?
Well sir, SDF's are volunteer organizations (and military, no less) and (at least the NM SDF) requires all officers to have at least 2 years of college before commissioning. They do a lot more than wash airplanes and march around parking lots. A good example can be found at: http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/airsupport1.htm
Howdy friend. It really isn't my intention to bear this cross. I concede that there are a million "what ifs" (and I hope I mentioned such in my original post) but when all is said and done... Well, like I say...so many admirable plans...not sure if they will really fix much of anything. Might just rob Peter to pay Paul...
Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 13, 2007, 01:37:29 AMHowdy friend. It really isn't my intention to bear this cross. I concede that there are a million "what ifs" (and I hope I mentioned such in my original post) but when all is said and done... Well, like I say...so many admirable plans...not sure if they will really fix much of anything. Might just rob Peter to pay Paul...
Understood, sir. I guess time will tell if any of the ideas on this site will come to fruition. I hope at least the good ones do, though (and by that, I mean the ones that don't rob Peter to pay Paul).
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 12, 2007, 05:02:27 PM
I think an OTS course is what CAP requires. The miltary may accede officers because they have degrees, but they still require an in-residence attendance. There are things that must be learned that college won't teach you.
And learning/teaching skills you won't learn in OTS or any other training we could give you. That's not the point though.
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 12, 2007, 04:30:21 PM
I can say confidently that there are many people who are smarter, brighter, and function better in society than I do, but yet did not go to college.
Of course that's true, but how many complete morons incapable of functioning in society do you know who were able to get a degree? Sure I guess there may be a couple, and shame on those universities, but the point here is have one means of several to block such idiots from becoming officers despite what they can make themselves look like on paper.
QuoteThe whole college/ university thing is over rated and designed to keep the underprivileged down and make it harder for them to find better paying jobs!
Now that just sounds communist. :P
Quote from: A.Member on January 12, 2007, 05:59:12 PM
Not a CAP requirement - an officer requirement.
Exactly!
Quote from: davedove on January 12, 2007, 06:01:48 PM
Yeah, but right now all seniors are officers.
These raised stadards would be the bearest bones lowest standards to
enter National Guard state level OCS, which generally also requires prior-service or a special skill, that being the lowest level of requirements possible to become a real officer. And, we're shooting for a capability level that's 20% under that. Still, stepping to that point necessitates that future members who don't meet the reqs or who really just aren't officer material or don't want the responsibility as much as they want the title, they're going to end up somewhere... oh say like an enlisted corps that sticks closer to our current senior program for progression.
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 12, 2007, 08:15:56 PM
Sorry, to be blunt, but you gonna pony up the funding to do that? It would take money that we don't have. So it doesn't get solved "quite nicely".
It's easy enough to accomodate prior service NCOs. They are already trained as NCOs. Bringing in a new enlisted progression program will cost us in many ways. Ways that we don't have the resources to support.
Sure how much you need? :D Seriously, it's no real cost. Ivolves keeping our current adult program & substituting the NCO PME for officer PME. I realize teh AF NCO PMEs (ALS, NCOA, SNCOA) that you can do from AFIADL are not perfect for our standards. AU has already offered any help we need to improve CAP PD. Long as it didn't involve excessive man days out of their budget. I think they can help us pick out the sections of their NCO PMEs that don't need to be there for us, and insert CAP specific material, then offer it thru AFIADL as online courses. The total cost for all three levels is quite low.
The bigger cost would be on the officer side to produce OTS & really we need a basic course to follow that turns the theory into practical skills (that's the one better done in-res).
... let me skip thru some of this stuff... The point is not to create an artificial roadblock. It's about finding a mechanism that keeps people who should not be officers from becoming one & having us all judged by the least among us. It's about getting high quality officers into leadership positions, giving our people the tools they need to lead, giving them a level of professional educaiton that will open the curtain & let them see why teh AF gets frustrated at times, give them the skills to jump into a multi-agency ICS staff & command others not just based on some technical knowledge, but the actual ability to officer your way thru that position commensurate with the grade you've been entrusted with. That's not a complete list, but you get the general idea. The college requirement, and again we're not tlaking about a degree here, does not along get you in to OTS, and is only one of several factors meant to keep incapable or underqualified people from becoming officers before they're ready.
NOTE: Virtually any AF NCO is going to meet the 60hr requirement based on CCAF or university recognition of their military technical training. It's almost unforeseeable that you could reach NCO level w/o meeting that requirement.
Please don't compare us to the Boy Scouts. I recognize there are some similarities. But there are also big differnces. Part of the officer concept being discussed here involves leadership beyon dthe small units we're used to. In fact one of the options is to scetralize more activities out of the Sq level... to call those small local units flights & tie 3-5 of them together with a shared staff & you expect to see probably no more than 6-10 officers in that 100-200 person organization.
By the way, I'll be first to admit that I want to raise these standards to levels I don't think I meet. I didn't think I was qualified to be anything like a 1Lt when I came over from the FO side, neither was I qual'd to be a Captain when I put that on, & I'm probably not up to snuff against a real military Major either. I think the margin is decreasing after 12 years. I don't think I should have been an officer at 21 before I got my degree. I kow I was terrible when I first walked in off the street at 18 & took charge of cadets that'd been there years. It took me a few years & a really outstanding Sq to make me worth a crap. A lot of people don't get the advantages I was priveledged to run into.
And one final thing...
I'd draw your attention to CAPR265-1 Section B (7) Moral Leadership Officer Appointment a) (1) The applicant has 60 hours of study beyond the High School DiplomaWhy is it okay for MLOs & not for everyone else? Why would you ask an MLO to meet that standard & not ask it of the DCC or Sq CC? What about an IC that has to do some serious upper level thought with lives on the line? No one's saying you need it for GTL, to be an ES officer, or Comm, an MP/MO... you can do 90% of CAP postions w/o having skill one as an officer, but there's a few where you want an officer tehre or an NCO with 10 years experience that's learned to lead in the CAP or military school of hard knocks.
Why do you need to redesign NCO stripes for an CAP NCO corp? CAP has always from 1942 and up used the regular USAAF and USAF stripes for NCOs. Even during the period when Squadron Commanders could appoint non-former military to NCO grades. Even the current NCO stripes are standard USAF stripes.
I think the AF might have a problem with big honkin stipes on the sleeve & just little metal cutouts on the collar when the person is/wasn't a real mil NCO.
Not real hard to take the regular AF stripes & embroider a red prop on top of the star, or take a look at the urban camo style stripes (that match nicely) if you want something distinctive on Blues/BDUs/BBDUs. Could also paint a red prop on the metal AF stripes if you don't think that'd look too much like a cadet. Or, we can embroider AF stripes on Gray CAP slides. Take your pick. It's all pretty simple. Don't think that was the discussion though.
Quote from: DNall on January 13, 2007, 02:15:56 AMQuote from: mikeylikey on January 12, 2007, 04:30:21 PM
I can say confidently that there are many people who are smarter, brighter, and function better in society than I do, but yet did not go to college.
Of course that's true, but how many complete morons incapable of functioning in society do you know who were able to get a degree? Sure I guess there may be a couple, and shame on those universities, but the point here is have one means of several to block such idiots from becoming officers despite what they can make themselves look like on paper.
But DNall....let's really look at the situation....how many completely incapable non college going officers do we really have...COMPARED TO full competant non-college going officers?
You would exclude the larger of quite competent leaders in order to stamp out the small hand full of morons who have morons for commanders.
Do you see my point? Who promoted these morons? The problem is not that the quality of our initial material. It is the quality of the training we give them once they are in. It is in the quality of the mentorship and the accountability of the leadership already in the CAP.
This sort of fix to a minor (and I think the rot we are talking about is more the exception than the rule) is swatting flies with a shot gun. Makes a lot of noise and blows a whole in the side of the wall...but it does not actually solve any problems. Sure you block the flies with out degrees....but there are probably just as many morons with degrees out there...and we still have not fixed the problem of commanders promoting incompetant people.
Yes & no. I tell ya what I tend to see... guy completely incapable of wiping on butt, does all training required of him, participates regularly, helping out & such, but literally borderline legal retarded... then I see soft-hearted CAP officers in a pencil whipping culture being told grade is meaningless, with a lawyer nagging them about ADA for not having an elevator to a second floor cadet area, and asking themselves on what basis they can prevent this person from being promoted.
I got this exact situation going on right now. Guy should have never been permitted to join (before I re-joined the unit), but he came as a package deal. This foster kind of family with several troubled adopted members kids. Not my best cadets by far, but they need the outreach pretty bad. So what am I supposed to do. I can keep ignoring this guy's request for promotion or further training for a while but not forever, but I can't in good concience run him off & lose those two cadets also. I could run the whole pack off if I wanted to, I mean one of your cadets misses a month cause he's in jail, yeah it's not that difficult.
I think you'd find the vast majority of Americans meet this 60hr standard. We previously linked census data, I think it was about 68-74% of US citizens had 2yrs college or equiv tech program (grad or not). Of the number that don't they are usually priced out of participation, so you're down to a VERY small number, and again waivers are available when they are appropriate & some kind of equivilancy can be shown. At some point though... I mean I'm already willing to take any prior-service, college drop outs, people w/ even lower quals if they're exceptionally qual'd (pref proven by serving a few years in CAP first)... where do you draw the line? I mean we're talking about 25% of new adult members selected to officer training - that being the target of 75-25 enlisted to officer force not counting everyone that gets grandfathered. I don't think it's as big a problem as you're making it out to be. I think you'll find that most people are going to look at what's required of them & choose to stay enlisted (where teh fun stuff is) rather than endure a dramatic amount of training to become primarily managers in support of enlisted operators out in the field. You just gotta have some standards man, and some of those have to be concrete objective things you can point to & say look see this guy is smart & qualified to spend the AF's money training him to serve in smarts requiring post or that in service of the AF, and that they can be counted on cause look at this & that over there.
We're going to be judged by the very worst of us, and that's as it should be - strong as your weakest link. I think education is certainly one factor we have to look real hard at among a spectrum of others in determining who we push up in these slots.
No degree is required, just 60hrs. A PhD doesn't get you an officer slot, it's just one factor among many looked at to decide which candidates are best prepared to face some pretty stiff educational challenges w/o wasting our time & money. That selection & every subsequent promotion goes thru an independent of command secret voting board of five people, w/ the state director (or non-CAP ret/res field grade appointee) defending AF standards. That's about the best I can come up with to legitimize this thing in both reality & the eyes of the AF, while getting real skills out in the pool that allow them to take on real ICS leadership positions beyond the limits of CAP with the ability to sieze control & really lead paid emergency responders. That's where we gotta get to.
I appreciate what you're saying I really do, but I know you can see where I'm coming from also. We haev to compromise to a decent middle ground stadnard that's both practical & high enough to gain those objectives. We've already walked this back form a degress to associates to 60hrs to including tech school & recognized military credit hours (even if the credit hasn't actually been awarded but would be if you paid the fees), and now I'm saying waivers for exceptional CAP enlisted to officer candidates after a couple thre years of service. I don't know how much more I can back down on this & still achieve objective force transformation. I aprpeciate your input though.
Lord M;
DNall is right. If you think about it, we all have horror stories of lieutenants and captains who were borderline illiterate. The system does not purge them out as it should. They can exist for years buried in a unit somewhere, embarrassing CAP both to the Air Force and to the community every time they put on a uniform or open their mouths.
I wish my CAP paycheck was based on how many times, when I was a city policeman, that some cop would come up to me and say: "Do you know somebody named Lance Romance? I was at his house on a call, and he claimed to be a captain in that CAP you belong to. Dude was a real moron. Must be real easy to be a captain there. Aren't you a captain or something?"
Once I went to a house trailer on a domestic. I didn't know the guy that lived there, since he was in a different unit. But he was almost knee-walking, commode-hugging drunk. His wife (?) claimed that he had not committed an act of violence, but that he kept talking about "Getting his guns to make things right." I decided to seize all of his guns for safekeeping, but when I told him that, he whips out his CAP ID card and tells me I can't, since he is "On call for the Air Force 24 hours a day."
We got to do something to improve our officer image.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 13, 2007, 03:26:57 PM
Once I went to a house trailer on a domestic. I didn't know the guy that lived there, since he was in a different unit. But he was almost knee-walking, commode-hugging drunk. His wife (?) claimed that he had not committed an act of violence, but that he kept talking about "Getting his guns to make things right." I decided to seize all of his guns for safekeeping, but when I told him that, he whips out his CAP ID card and tells me I can't, since he is "On call for the Air Force 24 hours a day."
ha hahah ahah ahhahahahahah ;D Thats awesome! I hope you shot him!!!!
Quote from: BillB on January 13, 2007, 02:28:15 AM
Why do you need to redesign NCO stripes for an CAP NCO corp? CAP has always from 1942 and up used the regular USAAF and USAF stripes for NCOs. Even during the period when Squadron Commanders could appoint non-former military to NCO grades. Even the current NCO stripes are standard USAF stripes.
Actually, Bill, CAP NCO stripes were originally bright red.
My point is you are attacking the wrong problem.
The problem is not that the moron was able to join and start training to be an officer....but that some commander promoted him.
That is what needs to be fixed. Don't cut off a large pool of capable officers because some commander's can't be trusted to make the right decision.
Friends, I believe that there is no easy fix to this situation. After 14 years in CAP in Texas and Arkansas, I have come to a few conclusions:
1. We aren't the Air Force. We aren't even the USAF Auxiliary unless it's convenient for the Air Force to call us their own; otherwise we're a civilian corporation, distanced from the military by the military and sometimes deservedly so.
2. Wanna-be's are everywhere, in every organization. If you want to be in the real Air Force, join the real Air Force. I've discovered over the years that the Wanna-be's are a real PITA and don't hold a candle to the youngest members of the real Air Force in many ways. The Wanna-be's are usually the ones that embarrass the rest of us.
3. Life in general teaches us that to command respect, you must earn respect. If you don't earn it, you most certainly can COMMAND respect however you won't necessarily GET respect. I've seen a number of Senior Members ("Officers") who would make a good argument for retroactive abortion. Example: I was squadron commander at one time with the rank of Captain. I refused to release an aircraft to a long-timer who had lied to me, lied to others, violated regs on a regular basis and was generally a sorry excuse for a CAP volunteer. I did not trust this individual because he had proven to me on a number of occasions that he couldn't be trusted, and had done so with other members of our unit. He called one day and said "CAPTAIN Quinn, this is LIEUTENANT COLONEL Soandso, and you WILL release that aircraft to me immediately!" I responded that, no, I did NOT have to release the airplane; I was not going to release the airplane; and he could go anywhere he wanted to go within the CAP but as long as my name was on the signature block as custodian of the aircraft I would never release the airplane to him until someone threw me out, period. So much for the rank thing.
4. 2b's don't mean squat to get rid of the kind of guy I just mentioned, because CAP doesn't have the collective gonads to rid the organization of those who truly need to be gone. The lawyers seem to have neutered CAP.
5. All you have to do to get your way in CAP, even if you're a great candidate to be 2b'ed, is to threaten to sue the Wing Commander, and the world is your oyster.
6. Education and experience should be used to place new members into jobs/slots that make the most of their skills as long as the member is interested in performing those duties, NOT to build additional walls between CAP and new recruits. Skills, experience, education, attitude and direction should dictate who leads squadrons, not the degree necessarily. Henry Ford had no degree, but he did have a box with buttons on his desk and when he needed to have some smart answers to questions and problems, he pushed a button on that box and summoned someone who had the degree and the smarts to solve his problems. His lack of a degree did not necessarily mean he was stupid or undeserving of his position. He was smart enough to own the company, and even more intelligent to realize that he didn't have all the correct answers but rather hired those folks with the educations who DID have the correct answers. A top-notch commander in CAP should have the ability to rely on his people and their skills, realize his own limitations, encourage and support his unit members in their advancement, LEAD them into their endeavors and duties, and RECOGNIZE them for their efforts! His duty as a leader is to train his (or her) replacements.
5. With negative retention among our ranks, instead of asking how we can put up new fences and hurdles for new recruits, why don't we instead encourage members to live up to a higher standard and then make it easier for them to receive the proper training in order to reach that goal? I'm not talking about "dumbing down" CAP in order to strengthen our numbers, but we must keep in mind that most of us are still employed, have families, responsibilities, etc. and must make time for CAP after all that. We're volunteers! Retired members sometimes have a little more time to invest in our program, but I believe the vast majority of us (including cadets) have many, many commitments now that do limit our ability to attend weeks of training such as that mentioned previously (OTC, etc.). I personally do not have a college degree, yet am I not a valued member? I've served as a squadron commander for several years; been on group staff; have been a SAR/DAR/CD pilot since joining, served as Safety Officer, PAO, Comm Guy and done everything else I could to contribute to the success of this organization. Does that mean that I'm not as qualified or as valued as someone else who does have a degree? I think not. By the same token, am I more important or more valuable than a new recruit with other skills? I don't think so, except for the fact that I have more experience, more training and more insight into the organization, perhaps. The key is that we should recognize and use the talents that are in this giant pool called a squadron. Attitude, energy, time and the volunteer spirit count much more than letters after a name, in my opinion. I don't care what level of education someone else in my unit has attained versus others' educational levels. It's the proper use of their skills that they bring to the unit that's most important. One of the things that I find incredible is the confusion and concern over our negative retention problem! Those at command levels much higher than mine have asked WHY we have retention problems, and my answer is always "When was the last time you visited a squadron out in the field and actually listened to the members? They'll TELL you! " I think that we (CAP) forget that our ranks are composed of volunteers, and yet we continually cause commotion and make new hoops and write all kinds of new regs and do things that most people wouldn't stand for as employees, let alone volunteers! Our members don't drop out because they stop volunteering. They just go to other organizations where they feel more valued than abused, and usually the abuse comes from the aforementioned "Wanna-be's" in charge.
Give me a group of dedicated, motivated, responsible people (of any age!) and I can make an excellent squadron of them! Don't tell me their educational level! Tell me their skills and their goals and desires and their ability to learn. Tell me of their desire to do the best job they can do. I'll give guidance, direction and timeframes, and will encourage everyone to talk to me about anything. I'm open to suggestion, criticism and success! I'm looking for someone who can step into my place when I get hit by the proverbial truck on the way to the meeting....
When I stepped down as a squadron commander, I gave a twelve-word speech from the bottom of my heart, meant to compliment and thank every member of my unit. I said, "You guys have made me look very good, and I thank you!" That's what it's all about--building from below.
Okay--I've said enough. Thanks for your ears.
Quote from: JamesG5223 on January 12, 2007, 10:44:24 PM
Then we need to add the propeller/triangle in some fashion to the NCO insignia in a manner that will distinguish it from USAF and cadet NCO insignia.
That really isn't that hard. No need to add anything to it. Just change the color; the gray color of our current officer epaulets would probably be just fine. We may have "CAP" on our epaulets, but the rank insignia is still traditional military.
As far as the "CAP" goes, why do we need epaulets that are a different color
and say CAP on them? Not like your ever going to wear them without your nametag, which gives the full explanation of who the wearer is with.
No reason to reinvent the wheel. Just repaint it.
Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 13, 2007, 01:19:03 AM
I admire the forethought and the vigor of those that want to make a CAP officer (or maybe NCOs too) virtually identically to his/her Geneva Conventions-abiding model from the Armed Forces. I really do!
Personally, I don't think we need to meet the exact requirements for military officers, but we do some more initial training. A new person that doesn't know how to wear a unifrom properly the first time is just as ignorant of other things. The improper uniform is just an indicator of that.
We do have the issue that our military counterparts look at us as lieutenants, captains, and lieutenant colonels. We should at least have the leadership training to accomodate the tasks they expect of us.
From what I'm reading, it looks like any educational requirement for becoming an officer in CAP is bad, but what CAP really needs is an Officer Training School or some sort of officer training program for senior members. I'm beginning to concur.
Does anyone know how Iowa Wing created their OTS? Perhaps we could see how that could be reproduced as a nation-wide program. There's one approach.
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 13, 2007, 07:41:27 PMPersonally, I don't think we need to meet the exact requirements for military officers, but we do some more initial training. A new person that doesn't know how to wear a uniform properly the first time is just as ignorant of other things. The improper uniform is just an indicator of that.
We do have the issue that our military counterparts look at us as lieutenants, captains, and lieutenant colonels. We should at least have the leadership training to accommodate the tasks they expect of us.
I agree with both of these points.....but the most important part is "We should at least have the leadership training to accommodate the
tasks they expect of us."
We do not have to have the same qualifications as they do...because we are not doing their job...but our job. I just want someone to tell me why I need to have a college degree to run a 30 person cadet squadron?
It's not rocket science. Yes you need to be mature, you need to organized, you need to know about the CAP program, you need to be responsible for the tests and finances. You may even need to be responsible for some property. You don't NEED a college degree for any of that.
Sure...let's toughen up the training. Let's hold commanders (and give them guidance) about who is and is not ready for promotion. But lets just drop all this gatekeeper nonsense.
Only 13K of the 270K enlisted people in the USAF have a BA/BS according to AFMPC. As a TSgt with no degree at all, I was personally responsible for over $3M of equipment and had 6 guys working directly for me. As a MSgt with a AS working on my BA I was responsible for over $200M worth of equipment, had 11 guys working for and had an annual budge of between $30-60K, while at the same time I was controlling the installations of over $300M worth of equipment in a 5 year period!
My cadet squadron had a budge of something like $1K/year not counting special projects.
Now I got my degree...but it did not teach me anything about how to run a work-center or a cadet squadron. It did not prepare me to accept the USAF training that I got or all the OJT where I really leaned how to do my job.
All a gatekeeper requirement does is lock out your pool of available leaders. Yes some of those swimming in that pool are the morons and incompetents we don't want being our leaders.....but you are hurting CAP more by blocking all the rest than my allowing a few sub-par officers into the system.
AGAIN...the fix is to provide better training and better oversight to the promotion process.
Quote from: DNall on January 13, 2007, 02:15:56 AM
And one final thing... I'd draw your attention to CAPR265-1 Section B (7) Moral Leadership Officer Appointment a) (1) The applicant has 60 hours of study beyond the High School Diploma
Why is it okay for MLOs & not for everyone else? Why would you ask an MLO to meet that standard & not ask it of the DCC or Sq CC? What about an IC that has to do some serious upper level thought with lives on the line? No one's saying you need it for GTL, to be an ES officer, or Comm, an MP/MO... you can do 90% of CAP postions w/o having skill one as an officer, but there's a few where you want an officer tehre or an NCO with 10 years experience that's learned to lead in the CAP or military school of hard knocks.
I believe the rationale behind that requirement for MLOs, is that a Moral Leadership Officer is appointed by the Chaplain Service after approval by the squadron commander (Form 2a). CAP Chaplains are required to have a minimum of an accredited Bachelors and 5 years of pastoral experience for their appointment. MLOs are an integral part of the Chaplain Service.
Quote from: Guardrail on January 12, 2007, 10:54:50 PM
Thanks, Lt Col Garlough. This helps put the budget issue in perspective.
Sir, what do you think about Major Kachenmeister's idea of keeping the NCO program the way it is but allowing civilians to join at AB and be able to go up to SrA? This would allow those officers who join primarily to drive cadets around and do other jobs most junior enlisteds to do, or join to support a cadet in the program, to do so without being 'extra baggage' in the squadron officer corps.
Also, Maj Caralles suggested that there be some sort of way for military NCOs who join CAP as NCOs to be able to promote through the NCO grades within CAP. Do you envision a cost-effective way to do this?
I respectfully disagree with Major Kachenmeister's idea of keeping the NCO program the way it is while allowing civilians to join at AB and be able to go up to SrA. IMO, that proposal would artificially create a class of people in CAP that would really not be allowed to fully experience the program. I cannot endorse that.
That said however, I believe an NCO corps in CAP is an interesting idea (and in that the Major and I agree). Basing officer appointment on requirements closer to the military is an idea that has been around a long time. The only way I see this working however, is with development of a meaningful program for NCO's that mirrors the current officer program in CAP. We'd need a stepped progression, educational milestones, leadership and practical schooling and awards to match. Like I said before, offer the member a robust program.
Many of these proposals seem to forget that the adults are not just in CAP to support cadets or fly SAR. There are many-many members who are in CAP for their own reasons; camaraderie, volunteer service, get away from the spouse once a week, etc., Thus, any NCO program must stand on its own merits, not just be an excuse to bring CAP closer to a military model for grade and advancement.
I have not decided yet how I fall on the issue (NCO program or keep things the way they are). However if we do institute an NCO program, I would argue that we keep the flight officer program as a place to put pilots who don't meet the officer requirements (whatever those end up being).
As for a way for military NCOs who join CAP as NCOs to be able to promote through the NCO grades within CAP, I would parallel the current military education credit program as it exists today for the new NCO program. If a former USAF NCO joined CAP, they should certainly come into CAP at equivalent grade and get credit for their military schooling, but they should still have to complete the CAP specific schools and courses to earn the CAP NCO milestone awards, just like the officers do now.
The cost of any such program will be considerable because in essence we are talking about a complete redesign of the CAP adult program, from the ground up. Like I said, I am not fully committed one way or another. The analysis that I'd like to see first would be a cost-benefit analysis that examines not only why CAP should do this, but what practical benefit it would offer the program.
Quote from: A.Member on January 13, 2007, 01:10:35 AM
Quote from: JamesG5223 on January 12, 2007, 10:44:24 PM
I project the minimum cost to CAP to implement a meaningful adult NCO program at $750,000 and probably more. Of course, this is amortized over a period of time, but still, it would represent a significant cost to CAP.
That's quite a SWAG, if I've ever seen one.
Glad you think so. LOL
Do some higher math yourself. Salaries of 5-10 personnel at National who are tasked with development of this program (basically redevelopment of the entire adult program) as a full-time project for a year or more. Coordination with other departments in CAP and their person-hour expenses in doing so.
Additional expenses include printing, creation of new awards (art), new insignia, educational materials for the units, training for units, etc.
I believe my "SAWG" figure is very conservative.
Quote from: Guardrail on January 13, 2007, 01:32:49 AM
Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 13, 2007, 01:19:03 AMI admire the forethought and the vigor of those that want to make a CAP officer (or maybe NCOs too) virtually identically to his/her Geneva Conventions-abiding model from the Armed Forces. I really do! But when we remove the heartstrings, does anybody really think that AAs/ASs or higher will ever become a requirement for a volunteer in a volunteer gig to do something more than wash airplanes or march around parking lots?
Well sir, SDF's are volunteer organizations (and military, no less) and (at least the NM SDF) requires all officers to have at least 2 years of college before commissioning. They do a lot more than wash airplanes and march around parking lots. A good example can be found at: http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/airsupport1.htm
They also get paid for their efforts. My last CAP paycheck had some pretty big negative numbers on it.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 13, 2007, 05:36:09 PM
My point is you are attacking the wrong problem.
The problem is not that the moron was able to join and start training to be an officer....but that some commander promoted him.
That is what needs to be fixed. Don't cut off a large pool of capable officers because some commander's can't be trusted to make the right decision.
Challenge for the list:
Jr. Wannabe joins CAP and completes all the training requirements to achieve a step up in grade. Goes to all the schools, passes all the tests, attends all the meetings. What grounds do we have under the regulations as they exist now to deny the promotion?
Lt Col Garlough:
We already have a class of CAP member such as you describe in you earlier post. We have the Cadet Sponsor Members, who can't wear the AF uniform, and have no rank. The "Enlisted" program I proposed simply expands somewhat on that existing program.
Quote from: JamesG5223 on January 14, 2007, 12:01:51 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 13, 2007, 05:36:09 PM
My point is you are attacking the wrong problem.
The problem is not that the moron was able to join and start training to be an officer....but that some commander promoted him.
That is what needs to be fixed. Don't cut off a large pool of capable officers because some commander's can't be trusted to make the right decision.
Challenge for the list:
Jr. Wannabe joins CAP and completes all the training requirements to achieve a step up in grade. Goes to all the schools, passes all the tests, attends all the meetings. What grounds do we have under the regulations as they exist now to deny the promotion?
Quote from: CAPR 35-5 Para 6.ee. Be recommended for promotion by the unit commander.
Quote from: CAPR 35-5 Para 8.aa. The immediate superior of the individual being recommended for promotion will ensure that the member meets the minimum eligibility criteria outlined in 6 above and, in addition, is qualified under the criteria of one of the following promotion methods outlined in section B, C, D, or E:
You don't just get promoted because you do your time and go to class. You have to be recommended by unit commander or immediate superior. It is their job to stop the morons and imbeciles.
Let me slow this down for a second. I think a lot of people are looking at end results & not understanding how we got there or why. Just take a minute to follow the logic with me, this is important.
Problem:
CAP's traditional missions are going away. That's due to technology on one hand & NIMS on the other. Let's talk about NIMS. There's an ICS training schedule fo dif positions that's required just to be in the AO. Then you have to bring a specialized skill set certified as meeting a set of requirements they define. Those involve some very serious total committment training that CAP doesn't remotely approach. until CAP gets in line with this we're going to increasingly be shut out of missions & but off from funding. When we decide to do this, a member won't be able to maintain currency in multiple unrelated specialties (aircrew & GT), and won't have time for anything but focusing on that one thing. Such a person meets the definition of what enlisted do in the military - subject matter experts, small unit leaders based on experience & proven skills, focused on their tactical job & the greater mission rather than the big picture long view.
Secondly, CAP has traditionally had a bad leadership gap that's harmed us at every turn & prevented the kind of evolution that's needed now. We need to create a pool of leaders grown in house that WE equip & develop thru each stage to lead & manage CAP. Those people need to bring a much greater capability at local unit mgmt, but they also need to be able to step up to mission leadership roles. By becoming NIMS compliant & typed we'll be in position to place our branch directors, section chiefs, & ICs in a joint-staff commanding tens to hundreds of agencies full of professional responders who have to be led by people that are not just subject matter experts, but who can bring the talents of officership & be viewed as legitimate.
Third, in order to survive we must evolve to be more meaningful to the AF. The reason we do SaR is to save them money & manpower that can be turned to combat power. That we get to potentially save people is completely bonus. Now with that in decline & with other critical areas on the rise in the AF, and CAP being recommended for jobs we're not able to do... we have to gain the trust of AF & Congress. If they think of us as hobbiest out volunteering to help out in a pinch (ie the concept under which CAP was founded), then we're out of business. We have to show them that the worst among us deserves enough of their trust to be the line of defense that prevents nukes from coming in the US say, or the lead go-to federal resource in things like air disaster assesment/SaR/etc. We also have to step up to help them directly, be that with augmentation and/or things like the cyber mission at 8th AF. The range of things CAP has been talked about is quite wide, but the Silly Air Patrol is not allowed to do such things. The professional newly transformed AFAux in which AF people see folks nearly on par with themselves stand in for airmen, DoD civilians, & contractors for free, so that money can be turned to combat power... it's enough to get back to a central role in the AF mission.
So that's where we HAVE to get. Now how to get there?
Solutions:
Governance... Power has already been removed from the corporate structure, but they are defered & dlegated to as the people with the pulse of the membership - you ever in your life thought of teh NB in those terms? The BoG is in charge. The concensus is that they act like it & below them be a straight line military chain of command made of CAP officers slected or at least confirmed by BoG.
Professional development... We have to develop the leadership abilities to do the jobs we're seeking to step to, we have to gain the trust over time to step to those jobs, and we have to produce people base on what WE teach them that can lead our organization at all levels. That requires legit officers. Training them costs money, time, & effort. And it only requires 20-25% of our active adult members (if you count cadets, it's 8-12%). It has to be challenging academically, on par w/ real OTS, if we want AF people to see these folks as legit & able to lead in critical missions up to & including national security. Producing graduates at that level means most people aren't going to make it. We don't need or want to waste time on people that can't get thru or that won't be good for us when they get thru. That means looking at objective & subjective factors that help us determine who's worth the risk. Education is one of few objective factors we can look at. That doesn't mean it outweighs the subjective, just that a standard is set & you have to really come with a special candidate to bypass it.
Attaining those results means 75-80% of people aren't going to do it - mostly they won't want to be officers, and who would blame them, but also many will not be able to make it thru the traininig & a small number would not be qualified enough for us to take a chance on them. These people go to the enlisted side where they focus on their chosen sub-specialty & the propfessional development they get is aimed at supporting growth as a small unit leader inside that specialty.
Costs:
These would be actually quite low.
The NCO program I put out there is a redeveloped version of the current adult program. ALS/NCOA/SNCOA from AFIADL are put on a table next to SLS/CLC/RSC/NSC. AF specific material (managing for WAPS & the like) is cut, CAP officer specific material is cut on the other end. results slammed together to produce CAP ALS, NCOA, SNCOA. That's all zero cost, you're using exisitng full-time personnel & volunteer cmtes in consultation w/ AF & retied NCOs. The cost comes in delivery. AFIADL is a possiblity. Another is a DVD delivered course like is being sent to members for level I now, yet another is the SLS/CLC format possibly with pre-attendance online modules. None of these is particularly expensive; long-term I favor the SLS/CLC w/ pre-mods myself as most members will be enlisted.
The officer side is a bit more costly, but less so than you think. It involves development of two courses: AuxOTS & Officer Basic Course. OTS is the content intensive course. It leans heavily on AU/CCs wide open offer of help to tap AFOATS for a joint cmte to take everything from real OTS that's not AF specific & put it in the CAP course at AF standards, then to replace the other w/ CAP specific material that makes the end course equally challenging. The AF has offered that help, it costs us very little to take advantage of it. Then delivery occurs via DVD/online modules & tests in conjunction with a mentor. That item cost is about 10 bucks & gets passed to the candidate.
The actual & limited development/production costs in both cases run about 75k total & CAP has to eat that. Easily justified to AF in the budget if asked for in advance.
Quote from: Chappie on January 13, 2007, 11:06:32 PM
Quote from: DNall on January 13, 2007, 02:15:56 AM
And one final thing... I'd draw your attention to CAPR265-1 Section B (7) Moral Leadership Officer Appointment a) (1) The applicant has 60 hours of study beyond the High School Diploma
Why is it okay for MLOs & not for everyone else? Why would you ask an MLO to meet that standard & not ask it of the DCC or Sq CC? What about an IC that has to do some serious upper level thought with lives on the line? No one's saying you need it for GTL, to be an ES officer, or Comm, an MP/MO... you can do 90% of CAP postions w/o having skill one as an officer, but there's a few where you want an officer tehre or an NCO with 10 years experience that's learned to lead in the CAP or military school of hard knocks.
I believe the rationale behind that requirement for MLOs, is that a Moral Leadership Officer is appointed by the Chaplain Service after approval by the squadron commander (Form 2a). CAP Chaplains are required to have a minimum of an accredited Bachelors and 5 years of pastoral experience for their appointment. MLOs are an integral part of the Chaplain Service.
Due respect, but that's no answer. It's required because they're confirmed by the Chap service? Okay, what's that got to do with it? It's required cause you can't have morons leading higher level thought discussions w/ kids on theoretical character. Not real hard to see how that relates to the maybe 3 officer positions that need filled in a Sq.
Finally, to the point that former NCOs, & the current officers we produce once they've had significant experience, can run a local unit of 30. Well sure they can, that's what NCOs do. That's also a flight in the real world. Put 3-5 of those together in what you'd think of now as a mini-Gp (we'll call that a Sq) and you need 3 company grade officers to run it w/a combined staff of NCO experts. You need those skilled people specializing in leadership & mgmt more than tech fields. You need them to cut their teeth in Sq Mgmt over a few years & then move up to Gp/Wg staff & beyond, being promoted based on merit along the way.
Quote from: DNall on January 14, 2007, 03:27:52 AM
So that's where we HAVE to get. Now how to get there?
Solutions:
Governance... Power has already been removed from the corporate structure, but they are defered & dlegated to as the people with the pulse of the membership - you ever in your life thought of teh NB in those terms? The BoG is in charge. The concensus is that they act like it & below them be a straight line military chain of command made of CAP officers slected or at least confirmed by BoG.
I think the BOG views itself as an oversight body...even if, on paper, they're empowered to exercise direct command, I get the impression that as a group, they don't want to involve themselves in CAP's day to day business.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 14, 2007, 05:04:42 AMI think the BOG views itself as an oversight body...even if, on paper, they're empowered to exercise direct command, I get the impression that as a group, they don't want to involve themselves in CAP's day to day business.
What about the NEC? Aren't they the same way too?
Quote from: DNall on January 14, 2007, 03:27:52 AM
Let me slow this down for a second. [Long post deleted, please refer to it above if necessary.
You make some good points. However, as I read your whole post the number one reaction I have is that you're proposing that we become the USAF, nothing less. You even state that we need to change ourselves to be of more use to the AF. With respect, you're going to have a hard time maintaining AF standards with unpaid volunteers.
What about focusing on becoming more useful to our communities? A great number of CAP units thrive in communities where there is no AF presence or the nearest AF base is six hours away. Why not put less emphasis on becoming the AF and more on training to be of service in our local communities, where it counts?
After all, isn't what counts most the benefit we provide the local community and the work we do with the cadets? These are the backbone of our program. Not whether we wear stripes or stars.
Quote from: JamesG5223 on January 14, 2007, 06:57:31 AM
Quote from: DNall on January 14, 2007, 03:27:52 AM
Let me slow this down for a second. [Long post deleted, please refer to it above if necessary.
You make some good points. However, as I read your whole post the number one reaction I have is that you're proposing that we become the USAF, nothing less. You even state that we need to change ourselves to be of more use to the AF. With respect, you're going to have a hard time maintaining AF standards with unpaid volunteers.
What about focusing on becoming more useful to our communities? A great number of CAP units thrive in communities where there is no AF presence or the nearest AF base is six hours away. Why not put less emphasis on becoming the AF and more on training to be of service in our local communities, where it counts?
After all, isn't what counts most the benefit we provide the local community and the work we do with the cadets? These are the backbone of our program. Not whether we wear stripes or stars.
Thank Gods! There is at least one other person out there that gets it! Thanks Col!
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 14, 2007, 05:04:42 AM
Quote from: DNall on January 14, 2007, 03:27:52 AM
So that's where we HAVE to get. Now how to get there?
Solutions:
Governance... Power has already been removed from the corporate structure, but they are defered & dlegated to as the people with the pulse of the membership - you ever in your life thought of teh NB in those terms? The BoG is in charge. The concensus is that they act like it & below them be a straight line military chain of command made of CAP officers slected or at least confirmed by BoG.
I think the BOG views itself as an oversight body...even if, on paper, they're empowered to exercise direct command, I get the impression that as a group, they don't want to involve themselves in CAP's day to day business.
I would agree & don't propose changing that. The NB doesn't run day-to-day either. The paid staff does, and the individual Wg/Reg/Nat officers do - NOT as members of the NB or NEC, but as part of a supposedly military chain of command. That just doesn't work in practice cause there's a conflict of interest. I think the BoG is & should stay an oversight body, the day to day should be run by NHQ & Nat-Wg officers, basically executing all the same powers that NB does now. at whatever echelon level it gets delegated to.
Quote from: JamesG5223 on January 14, 2007, 06:57:31 AM
Quote from: DNall on January 14, 2007, 03:27:52 AM
Let me slow this down for a second. [Long post deleted, please refer to it above if necessary.
You make some good points. However, as I read your whole post the number one reaction I have is that you're proposing that we become the USAF, nothing less. You even state that we need to change ourselves to be of more use to the AF. With respect, you’re going to have a hard time maintaining AF standards with unpaid volunteers.
What about focusing on becoming more useful to our communities? A great number of CAP units thrive in communities where there is no AF presence or the nearest AF base is six hours away. Why not put less emphasis on becoming the AF and more on training to be of service in our local communities, where it counts?
After all, isn’t what counts most the benefit we provide the local community and the work we do with the cadets? These are the backbone of our program. Not whether we wear stripes or stars.
I'm glad you raise that point cause it's important to understand this. I'd start by saying the military fighting wars overseas is a service to the community, state, & nation. I'd then tell you that when CAP runs AFAM SaR/DR/CN/HLD/etc that each of those is in support of our community, state, & nation. I'd mroe specifically tell you that SaR/DR are not really AF missions, but belong to state/local & AF funds them as a community service. Beyond that, Congress & AF don't pay for us so we can go work for anyone in need. They pay for us to work for the federal govt & are tolerant of us helping others in our spare time just so it doesn't de-prioritize or detract from our federal capabilities. If you don't keep sight of that priority set then you'll find yourself very quickly with no money to pay for all these planes, radios, vehicles, training, gas, etc.
The cadet program was created & exists today to be of service to the AF. We're not suppose to push them into anything, but rather givbe them the opportunity to explore options & give them skill sets of use in the military, but make no mistake that we exist today because the AF sees that program as a pipeline into their service. They view AE much the same way, as producing candidates or public support for budgets. I said alreay ES is about saving money/manpower to shift into combat power right? That's what CAP is about & always has been about.
Feel free to look at state/local though. you'll find in some places that there's a little bit to be done there, in other's the state is pretty well off of their own accord & not only can do the mission better than you w/ their own reasources but probably doesn't want you interefereing with their incedents or DHS funding lines. Say they do want your help though, but they can't pay to to keep up however many planes there are in your wing or the amount of training money you get each year. How are you going to keep working for them long-term w/o the AF subsidizing it?
Ultimately ge who pays the most money gets our loyalty. The AF every single year pays four times more than all member dues, corporate sponsorships, grants, state/local missions, donations, & bake sales combined. They expect a big return on their investment or they'll cut back or stop the investment. You can focus on local communities, play boy scout w/ plane, but it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that ultimately lead to no more CAP.
We were created after the war to be of service to the AF. The only way we stay alive is to continue & expand that. We're going obselete right now as we look at ELT tech & NIMS taking away our traditional front line ES missions. We have to adapt to stay relavent. Staying relavent to the AF & Congress means helping the AF serve the community, state, & nation. Then maybe after the fact if we're sitting around in the right place at the right time w/ the right gear & nothing to do THEN we might be able to help out a few other limit folks on limit missions within strict rules. That's the CAP you joined, and that isn't going to change. The math just doesn't work any other way.
oh sorry, and far as being the AF. That's not what's being proposed. You need a real degree & face much stiffer competitive slection, including PT & an AFOQT, plus the subjective aspect to be a real AF officer. 60hrs, a couple rec letters, an interview & selection board, then spread the academic end of 90 day OTS to a year of modules done in conjunction w/ a mentor... that's a LONG way from being an AF officer. It's just as close as we can reasonablly get, and it's a comfortable medium that lets mil & emer responders look at us & see by their own criteria that we're legitimate & skilled enough to work in their world, even if that at times means over some of their people as appropriate (primarily in ICS).
Can volunteers do this? Well probably not if they keep thinking of themselves as just community volunteers, but let me point out two examples. First is ACA. They are just a cadet program & not formally tied to any branch of service (but strong informal connections). The OCS they require is two weeks in-res hardcore trng, a year of intense self-study, & two more weeks at the end, at a cost of several thousand to the candidate. That's much more strenuous & time consuming than what I'm asking & they don't even have an ES mission or federal backing. The other example I'd give you are the many SDFs around the country. People like to point out the differences, but too quickly look past the similiarities. Some get paid on state active duty, most do not. That's only when deployed to a disaster or something though, never for monthly drill or other training. Like CGAux, SDFs train in MOS/AFSC fields & become certified to stand in for National Guard personnel inside the state, and they work from the outside to do other jobs in support of the guard units. The requirements they have vary a lot from state to state, but for the most part are 60hrs college, a highly selective process, & state level OCS - meaning harder than what I propose. What we're talking about this basically making CAP similiar, not the same, but closer than it is now, to an SDF for the federal AF.
Can volunteers do it? Well unpaid professionals can, & they're doing it very successfuly in programs with many fewer advantages than CAP brings to the table. I know there's some symantics involved there, but attitude is everything in this. When there's no law that forces you to behave like the reserves, but you choose to do so anyway... yeah it can work, and it's jus tnot that many people we're asking this of.
Dennis:
I agree with almost everything you say.
But OTS has to have at least an in-resident element.
Iowa's is 6-months long, conducted 1 weekend per month. That's good. I'm putting one together in FL that is planned for 3 months, we'll see how good that is.
Without an in-resident phase, you cannot teach collective tasks such as D&C, nor do you have the intensity of training we are seeking.
The bonding of the class, and the networking opportunities are also not insignificant advantages.
Home study, net-based or DVD-based instruction can and should augment, but cannot replace, in-resident training.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 14, 2007, 02:37:45 PM
Dennis:
I agree with almost everything you say.
But OTS has to have at least an in-resident element.
Iowa's is 6-months long, conducted 1 weekend per month. That's good. I'm putting one together in FL that is planned for 3 months, we'll see how good that is.
Without an in-resident phase, you cannot teach collective tasks such as D&C, nor do you have the intensity of training we are seeking.
The bonding of the class, and the networking opportunities are also not insignificant advantages.
Home study, net-based or DVD-based instruction can and should augment, but cannot replace, in-resident training.
If you make the whole thing residential you're going to have problems, I think.....a mix of residential, single day classes, and home/internet study would be better.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 14, 2007, 02:37:45 PM
Dennis:
I agree with almost everything you say.
But OTS has to have at least an in-resident element.
Iowa's is 6-months long, conducted 1 weekend per month. That's good. I'm putting one together in FL that is planned for 3 months, we'll see how good that is.
Without an in-resident phase, you cannot teach collective tasks such as D&C, nor do you have the intensity of training we are seeking.
The bonding of the class, and the networking opportunities are also not insignificant advantages.
Home study, net-based or DVD-based instruction can and should augment, but cannot replace, in-resident training.
I know I know. What I got is trying to tailor to the unique situation of CAP members. I know it doesn't address the intrensic subjective advantages of an in-res course. You see that same kind of dynamic w/ RSC/NSC & even COS to an extent. However, all commissioning program in the military (OTS. OCS, Acad, ROTC) are fairly limited to theory. It's the Officer Basic Course where you turn that theory into the mission-centric warrior attitude, practical application of the theory you learned to the real world.
Now, I'm not sure how to proceed on this. I think the academic content proposed in my course (real OTS -AF specific material +CAP specific material) is very important. I do also think it's important to have the elements you're talking about. I think my program with the addition of 2-4 wknds over the year accomplishes what you're looking for. Some of the networking can also happen online in a forum devoted to students & instructors/mentors.
It's also worth considering doing that element at an officer basic course. I have to check agian but the academic portion of the AF ASBC my actually be up at AFIADL. This is stuff has to be worked out in the details.
Point here though is should we consider education as a factor in selecting officer candidates & to what extent should it be a gatekeeping factor to limit mentally deficient individuals from entering the training & wasting our limited resources.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 15, 2007, 12:19:38 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 14, 2007, 02:37:45 PM
Dennis:
I agree with almost everything you say.
But OTS has to have at least an in-resident element.
Iowa's is 6-months long, conducted 1 weekend per month. That's good. I'm putting one together in FL that is planned for 3 months, we'll see how good that is.
Without an in-resident phase, you cannot teach collective tasks such as D&C, nor do you have the intensity of training we are seeking.
The bonding of the class, and the networking opportunities are also not insignificant advantages.
Home study, net-based or DVD-based instruction can and should augment, but cannot replace, in-resident training.
If you make the whole thing residential you're going to have problems, I think.....a mix of residential, single day classes, and home/internet study would be better.
Personally, I think Iowa's is a bit long. I think 3 months is about right, conducted in 3 weekend drills in consecutive months. Weekend 1: beast, lots of D&C, GES qualification, BCUT, e-services. Weekend 2: SLS. Weekend 3: Flight operations (O-flights/1 hr prep for Fm 5 for pilots), health and fitness, family support, graduation. You can add OPSEC, and some other web-based home study stuff, and get them started on AFIADL-13.
My vote is no. Our military grades carry no weight outside of our organization and besides that, with over 18 years of supervisory and management experience (military and civilian) with no degree why should I get a degree just to be a CAP officer?
Pretty much because of what you said yourself. Our rank structure carries little weight outside of the organization and not much more within it. Almost all professional level operations whether military or civilian require some level of defined academic achievement for it's leadership structure. If we wish to bring CAP to a level comparable to the many agencies it desires to do business with and deepen the relationship with those we already work with, why shouldn't we strive to reach some level of parity?
I really don't see the need for college degree for CAP leadership, provided the Professional Development program is undertaken in a sensible fashion.
And just in the interests of full disclosure, I have several graduate degrees....so i oughta know!
We've seen a fair amount of "instant brass" promoted to field grade on some lame excuse, then running through SLS/CLC/RSC/NSC in six months or a year.
So now they have paper qualifications -- but virtually none of the accompanying experience.
While I certainly understand the principle behind the suggestion to require degrees for CAP officers I don't think that will solve any of the problems discussed on this board. The primary problem with our officers is their leadership ability and screening for college experience will not help in this area.
Again, listen closely. A degree is NOT being mentioned as a requirement. Not even an associates degree. 60hrs academic credit beyond HS or the equiv is the standard being discussed. The same thing being required of an MLO to teach character to our cadets.
NOW, look at the context under which it's being mentioned. It is NOT as a pretext to say this person can or cannot be a leader. The officer training being proposed is quite intensive intellectually & psychologically. It also costs money for every candidate that goes thru. We also only need about 6000 graduates of this program for all of CAP at our current size, and really that's 3-4 times what we would need if we could ship people around to units where they're needed. It's tripled to quadrupled for redundancy. Obviously we'll be screening candidates. Ensuring someone can deal with the academic rigors of this program w/o wasting our time & money is completely reasonable & education as a factor in that assessment is more than fair.
Why does this bother anyone anyway? Given the percentage of US citizens with at least this much college & the cost barrier to be in CAP, also given that four years of military service should genreate enough academic credit even if it isn't recored by some junior college, it's a VERY VERY VERY small percentage of CAP members that don't meet this requirement. If you put that group in a room, you'd find a portion you don't want in CAP at all, some of the others would make excellent enlisted troops, and maybe a dozen or so would be deserving officer candidates that you'd like to see apply for a waiver.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 14, 2007, 03:04:02 AM
Quote from: CAPR 35-5 Para 6.ee. Be recommended for promotion by the unit commander.
Quote from: CAPR 35-5 Para 8.aa. The immediate superior of the individual being recommended for promotion will ensure that the member meets the minimum eligibility criteria outlined in 6 above and, in addition, is qualified under the criteria of one of the following promotion methods outlined in section B, C, D, or E:
You don't just get promoted because you do your time and go to class. You have to be recommended by unit commander or immediate superior. It is their job to stop the morons and imbeciles.
OK fair enough. You passed the test. Now, put that into a practical prospective. How does the commander know who's a "moron" in every instance?
Remember, every one of us is a moron to somebody. Somewhere along the line we made a mistake and there's some other member out there who thinks we can't tie our shoes because of it. My point is that "moron-ness" is pretty subjective.
The bottom line for me is this; these are very subjective and sometimes very difficult decisions for a commander to make. The decision can have many consequences including; promotion of the wrong person, holding back the right person, lawsuits, and loss of members.
Here's an example for you: Member with low IQ (but high functioning) joins CAP and passes all the tests and training to become a second lieutenant. Member serves the unit by showing up at every meeting, in uniform and on-time. Takes on a fairly simple staff position—say testing officer—and performs the duty well.
However, he's just enough on the low side that the cadets occasionally make fun of him behind his back and certainly the military would never have taken him on. Yet, we don't discriminate, so his membership application was accepted. We have told him how to go up in rank in class after class.
Member works hard to fulfill all the requirements to be promoted to first lieutenant. Do we really have grounds to deny his promotion? Sure we have the regulatory authority but do we have the moral authority? Even though we know he will never rise to command of a unit and in fact, is unlikely to be able to do any other job in CAP besides the one he's doing? If we deny him and he quits are we hurting the unit? Did we hurt him by allowing him to join in the first place?
I'm not looking for answers to those questions because the answers are subjective. I'm asking them to illustrate my point that promotion in CAP and officer appointment in CAP is not as clear cut as you'd like it to be.
No commander is omnipotent. We do not always know who is a moron or who is not a moron or even who will become the next Machiavellian turkey bent on world domination. Most CAP commanders do the best they can at the time with what they have.
Just because you think somebody is a moron, does not mean thier commander thinks they are.
Your mileage may vary.
Quote from: aveighter on January 15, 2007, 04:06:26 AM
Pretty much because of what you said yourself. Our rank structure carries little weight outside of the organization and not much more within it. Almost all professional level operations whether military or civilian require some level of defined academic achievement for it's leadership structure. If we wish to bring CAP to a level comparable to the many agencies it desires to do business with and deepen the relationship with those we already work with, why shouldn't we strive to reach some level of parity?
Just for focus, the largest and most successful business enterprise in the world does not require academic achievement to become a manager, just a few weeks of training in their own course. Does not seem to have hurt them much. (Wal-Mart).
Quote from: JamesG5223 on January 15, 2007, 05:05:51 AM
Quote from: aveighter on January 15, 2007, 04:06:26 AM
Pretty much because of what you said yourself. Our rank structure carries little weight outside of the organization and not much more within it. Almost all professional level operations whether military or civilian require some level of defined academic achievement for it's leadership structure. If we wish to bring CAP to a level comparable to the many agencies it desires to do business with and deepen the relationship with those we already work with, why shouldn't we strive to reach some level of parity?
Just for focus, the largest and most successful business enterprise in the world does not require academic achievement to become a manager, just a few weeks of training in their own course. Does not seem to have hurt them much. (Wal-Mart).
NCO position, and requires a long time to work your way into it. On the other hand they do recruit very hard at colleges & take on new grads as executive trainees. In fact Wal-Mart has spoken at length about their inability to find managment material people among the less educated pool they work with. That's why they have turned to college grads, and have great programs for college students, and several scholarship programs to send their employees to school.
Quote from: DNall on January 15, 2007, 04:43:44 AM
Again, listen closely. A degree is NOT being mentioned as a requirement. Not even an associates degree. 60hrs academic credit beyond HS or the equiv is the standard being discussed. The same thing being required of an MLO to teach character to our cadets.
OK, listening. Please do the same; "College degree" is being used lightly to mean the same as your "60hrs academic credit beyond HS or the equiv" by most writers. Also, the average semester hour requirement for a 2-year or Associate degree is about 60 hours. So, listen closely please; the argument about whether a "degree" is required is semantics and incredibly minor. You're still talking about a significant amount of post high school education that the vast majority of our members don't have.
Additionally, the point many people are trying to make is that no amount of post high school education will guarantee a good CAP leader. Neither will increased application of OCS curriculum or adapting the NCO curriculum to CAP use. Like it or not, at the grass roots, CAP is not designed to be the military and never will be.
However, here's where we agree; CAP does need to increase the professionalism of the adult corps. I agree. However, we need to do that in a manner that is rational for Civil Air Patrol leaders, not just to become imitation military leaders or to appear to be something we're not to other agencies. Professionalism by our own standards will be respected by others.
Many great people fail in CAP because of their preconceived notions of what a military leader must be. Very unfortunately, all too often these folks are former military officers who when confronted with the realties of little real accountability, having to bag groceries for cash to run the unit, cadets who are out of control, airplanes that need washed, and adult members who do what they want, when they want, simply get overwhelmed and leave. Then they speak badly of CAP. Most of that is our own fault because we don't train them for what to expect in a practical sense. A revamped OTS or NCO school won't address the gap in training—practical CAP unit management.
Quote
...It also costs money for every candidate that goes thru.
I thought it would cost very little.
Quote
We also only need about 6000 graduates of this program for all of CAP at our current size, and really that's 3-4 times what we would need if we could ship people around to units where they're needed.
Again, you propose that we become the military, at least in our officer corps.
For the record, we have roughly 25,000-30,000 adult members now. If we demote all those who don't qualify for the grade they are now wearing under your proposal, we'll lose at least half, if not more. That's unacceptable. I completely disagree with your assessment that only a "VERY VERY VERY" small number of CAP members won't meet the education requirement you are proposing.
However, for the sake of discussion, let's just say you're right, and "VERY VERY VERY" few members don't meet the requirement. Then what's the point of your proposal? You just admitted that most CAP officers already meet your requirement and that "VERY VERY VERY" few don't. So we'd be back to picking and choosing with the same authority we have now.
As for moving people around...unless they pay a healthy salary, excellent benefits, housing allowance, moving allowance, uniforms, etc., that's not going to happen. Again, you seem to want to be in the military again. That's cool, but CAP is not it and CAP cannot afford to pay for that.
Why does it bother people? Because this supposed grass roots community service organization that many fine folks have devoted their lives to under your proposal will throw a lot of those people out. That's cruel.
Quote from: JamesG5223 on January 15, 2007, 05:39:53 AM
Like it or not, at the grass roots, CAP is not designed to be the military and never will be.
How then do you explain the Title 10 status. Also explain the structure of the organization. While we are not the military we most certainly take much of structure (read=design) from the military. You've been around long enough, certainly you should understand this. Take a look a AFAIDL 13, Volumes 1 and 4 and tell me how they describe the organization and leadership.
Quote from: JamesG5223 on January 15, 2007, 05:39:53 AM
Why does it bother people? Because this supposed grass roots community service organization that many fine folks have devoted their lives to under your proposal will throw a lot of those people out. That's cruel.
I wouldn't characterize the organization as "grass roots". We receive funding from Congress and directives are provided from National. In addition, while I may not agree with everything that DNall is proposing (although I generally agree with much of it), I'd hardly say that it "throws people out". It is just one part of the equation to help solidify and lend greater crediblity to our requirements for command, something that even you admit needs to be done. In many ways, these proposals would better position us back with some of the founding ideals of the organization.
Interestingly, you continue to throw out figures without any quantitative support - "we'll lose at least half, if not more. That's unacceptable." Sure, if such changes are implemented, some people will choose to leave, I have no real heartburn over that. How many exactly? At best, all we can say is that's unknown. Similarly, many people (BTW, there's your real percentage - half) have obviously chosen to leave for one reason or another under the current direction of the organization. Of course, there will also be some that will undoubtly chose to join as a result of such increased standards as well. There are other noble organizations, such as the Scouts or 4-H, for those that are not as interested in such changes. IMO, a smaller organization with a more capable (better trained, dedicated) group of volunteers is much better than a large disfunctional organization with poor leadership and indifferent members. I've said it before, if I had to chose one, I'd go for quality over quantity. Change can be hard but is often needed. It's just a simple difference of opinion. I'm sure I won't change your opinion and you won't change mine.
James,
While I agree with you that we dont need to make members get college credits, I have to disagree with your statement that CAP is not designed to be the military. Look at our history. We were created to augment the military. Backi n those days members didnt wear a "civilian" blue shirt and grey slacks. Everubody wore the Army Air Corps uniform and met the height and weight standards. No questions asked. Either you met it or you couldnt join.
Some where through the year as we recruited peole that didnt want to be affiliated withthe military and the standards changed. For some reason we relaxd our standards.
Quote from: JamesG5223 on January 15, 2007, 05:39:53 AM
QuoteWe also only need about 6000 graduates of this program for all of CAP at our current size, and really that's 3-4 times what we would need if we could ship people around to units where they're needed.
Again, you propose that we become the military, at least in our officer corps.
For the record, we have roughly 25,000-30,000 adult members now. If we demote all those who don't qualify for the grade they are now wearing under your proposal, we'll lose at least half, if not more. That's unacceptable. I completely disagree with your assessment that only a "VERY VERY VERY" small number of CAP members won't meet the education requirement you are proposing.
Not to mention the number of people who will bolt when you start shipping them around.
So you want to lock out a significant number of our members who are currently very good at being CAP officers from becoming leaders...then you want to tell these volunteers that in order for them to stay in the program...they have to go to meetings 2 hours away....because they 20 year USAF SNCO with out any college is not good enough to run a 20 member cadet squadron.
And you want to do this...because you are hoping that someday...the USAF may think that you are just as good as they are and will try to find a job for you.
Sorry boys...that dog don't hunt.
If/when the USAF decides to stop funding us and asks congress to change the law giving us special status.....they will just stop funding us. If/when we no longer have a function, that will be it. Sure...we can maybe find another job to do. But making us super officers is not going to make us more useful the the USAF. When the SR-71 got mothballed....the pilots did not go out and try to become better pilots and hope the USAF saw how good they were....maybe they'll make the SR-71 a cargo plane.
Now I do think we need to improve our internal leadership development...but that is simply so we can be the best volunteer ES, CP and AE professionals we can be. I have no illusions of someday becoming a USAF officer and being asked to fly the big ones in time of crisis...nor do I ever see me being asked in my CAP capacity to be the head of air ops as when California finally bites the big one.
60hr vs Degree:
60hrs is noted specifically rather than Associates to address issues like an EMT-I who earned their qualification in non-credit programs that cannot lead to a degree but can be evaluated for equiv. If you say "degree" over & over, it confuses a lot of people that came in during the middle & leaves the impression that this is some kind of elietest effort to hold people back, it isn't and you know that.
Why educated people?
Every person we train right now requires time & money, then spreads a limited budget over more people when they get done. A program like this has a failure rate. It also involves picking some individuals over others for limited slots. You go to a corporation to apply for a job there's dif requirements for a line job that may one day lead to operational middle managment after years, & the requirements to apply for junior executive training. Why you figure that is? The military requires college as a prereq before they even look at a person. Does college make you a leader? No. Does being an officer make you a better leader than an NCO? No. That's not the point. You know there's a reason education is looked at in the world & you know it's a legitimate factor in evaluating people & if we should take a risk on them or not.
Stats - who's qualified?
The US Census says 44% of US residents meet this standard, draw that back to US citizens & it's 67%. Of that remaining 34% (the majority of whom are naturalized citizens who moved to the US as adults), subtract the 16% who do not have a HS diploma, which is required for promotion to FO/2LT in CAP. That brings you to 18%. From that number subtract anyone with life experience that a JrCol will grant equiv credit for (mil, tech school, EMT/Fire/LE training & experience, etc). The average household income among that group is under 20k/yr, which makes time & money for CAP membership extremely difficult at best. There is no good data on CAP membership so I can't give you hard numbers, but I think if you ran the numbers you'd find the large majority of people meet these standards, while we'd only be taking 20-25% of new adults as officers candidates. Education is a legit thing to look at in picking who we give those shots to.
Transition:
No one gets demoted. This is for new members working toward a future force. Existing members would just have to meet the standards for the grade they hold. Example: LtCol needs ACSC if they don't already have it; has two years, plus can ask for a one year extension, to get it done; if they can't or won't by the end of that time then they get dropped one step to Major & no more; if they wish to get promoted from there then they have to have SOS on record (for Major) & do ACSC; that's it. No one gets demoted to enlisted weather they have a degree or not. They're all grandfathered. I don't love that, but there's not a lot of choice in the matter.
Retention:
As to worrying about retention, what do you think happens when the federal govt requires a PFT for adults to go on any mission, and requires state/local to require the same thing of us if they want to get any federal money for anything at all. What about if ELT missions dry up & our air/radio/vehicle fleet gets cut in half or more? You know what our recruiting to retention rates are now & historically? We replace the majority of our membership every few years anyway. While I don't want lose people & don't want to push anyone out, we have to focus on where we need to be & have faith that we can recruit to replace our losses thru a rough transition.
I did NOT say we need to move poeple around. I said we'd make 3-4 times more officers than we need because we can NOT move people around.
Nature of the beast
This is not a grassroots community service organization. The red cross is not a grass roots community service organization. We do tap resources all over the country, but those resources are centrally controlled & the people spent to accomplish national & regional objectives on behalf of the govt. No one's being pushed along, much less thrown out. However change does require breaking a few eggs & things don't stay the same forever. Is it more important to keep things the way they are so everyone feels comfortable right to the end, or to preserve & protect what's good for CAP & the country in teh long-term even if it may cost a lot? I didn't make the technology change or the national standards that flowed out of 9/11 or the new mission set that needs to be done by something like us but that we're not good enough for right now. I'm just looking at how to react to the world that's already changed & try to be proactive before it's too late. I know change is painful. You have to accept the pain & move beyond it.
To be clear, I'm not trying to turn CAP into the military, not remotely. They get forced to duty for months at a time & go far far away where they get shot at, and get paid in return for that. That's not what we're making CAP into. We're just setting scalable standards for scalable levels of responsibility. Stepping up to be judged by our customer on their standards. The is all about mission. The mission we have is going away very soon. We have to change to something that better serves the AF needs to justify our budget. There's a laundry list of things that need doing critically, that we have the right gear & capability in the right place to do, but we're viewed as idiots off the street. Some of that's PR, but a lot of it's true when you use their standards to make the judgement. We have to fix that to be trusted again with inportant functions of the govt. Otherwise, we're gone. Some people are okay with that just so they're comfortable on the way. I see it as fiddling while the city burns, or reaaranging the deck chairs on the titanic, whichever you like the best.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2007, 08:23:35 AM
And you want to do this...because you are hoping that someday...the USAF may think that you are just as good as they are and will try to find a job for you.
Sorry boys...that dog don't hunt.
If/when the USAF decides to stop funding us and asks congress to change the law giving us special status.....they will just stop funding us. If/when we no longer have a function, that will be it. Sure...we can maybe find another job to do. But making us super officers is not going to make us more useful the the USAF.
You're missing it. It's not just about making us "more useful" to just USAF, it's about having greater credibility with
any organization we choose to do business with in the future. It is not merely one item, it is one component of a larger improvement plan. All of which gives us another selling point - and one that is greatly needed.
Quote from: aveighter on January 15, 2007, 04:06:26 AM
Pretty much because of what you said yourself. Our rank structure carries little weight outside of the organization and not much more within it. Almost all professional level operations whether military or civilian require some level of defined academic achievement for it's leadership structure. If we wish to bring CAP to a level comparable to the many agencies it desires to do business with and deepen the relationship with those we already work with, why shouldn't we strive to reach some level of parity?
I agree, some level of parity but with numerous military NCO schools, CAP Professional Development Courses, and an untold blevy of mindnumbing corporate leadership workshops and training, (plus civilian/military training and experience) -- why would a two year degree not equal workplace experience.
We've got to remember that when the military requires degrees it is imposing that requirement on kids in their early 20s who have very little life experience to draw from. At that stage if you've got 2 23 year-olds one of whom with a college degree and one without, there is a pretty good chance that the one with the degree is probably more mature and more capable of taking on more critical positions -- so, that one is the officer.
Most adults are entering CAP in their 40s or later and we can assume they've already mature individuals who understand the work ethic required for someone in a leadership position.
As someone with a graduate degree this proposal wouldn't affect me one way or the other, but I just don't see any major benefit to CAP here.
Quote from: DNall on January 15, 2007, 09:00:27 AM
60hr vs Degree:
Example: LtCol needs ACSC if they don't already have it; has two years, plus can ask for a one year extension, to get it done; if they can't or won't by the end of that time then they get dropped one step to Major & no more; if they wish to get promoted from there then they have to have SOS on record (for Major) & do ACSC; that's it.
My Question is:
When you say that LtCol needs ACSC, does that mean if he has NSC that is equivalent or does he need it in addition to?
Tags - MIKE
Quote from: DNall on January 15, 2007, 09:00:27 AM
Why educated people?
... The military requires college as a prereq before they even look at a person. Does college make you a leader? No. Does being an officer make you a better leader than an NCO? No. That's not the point. You know there's a reason education is looked at in the world & you know it's a legitimate factor in evaluating people & if we should take a risk on them or not.
And to add to that it's a requirement for every member of the uniformed services, not just those under the DOD. Consider the commissioning requirements from a couple of the non-DOD services:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps (http://www.noaacorps.noaa.gov/recruiting/entryreq.html):
QuoteCitizenship Requirements
A United States citizen of good moral character.
Service Requirement
Ability to complete 20 years of active commissioned service by the 62nd birthday.
Educational Requirements
Completion of a baccalaureate degree in a major course of study in engineering, mathematics, or science related to NOAA's mission, conferred by a college, university, or academy listed in the most recent edition of the Directory of Post Secondary Institutions (Volume 1).
Completion of at least 48 semester (72 quarter) hours in fields related to NOAA's scientific or technical activities.
Completion of Calculus I and Calculus II, (integral and differential calculus).
Completion of Physics I and Physics II, calculus based with laboratory credits.
Applicants who have completed Calculus I and Physics I, but have not completed Calculus II and Physics II, may request to substitute other academic science subjects directly related to NOAA's mission. For example, coursework in computer science or geographical information systems may be substituted.
Physical Requirements
Meet the medical standards prescribed by the United States Coast Guard for officer candidates.
Visual acuity of 20/400, correctable to 20/20, (each eye). Laser refractive surgery for vision correction is disqualifying. Waivers for Photorefractive Keratectomy (PRK) and Laser In-situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) may be considered, if certain criteria are met. Prior RK surgery will not be granted a medical waiver. All refractive surgery is disqualifying for aviation duty and diving duty.
etc, etc...
Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (http://www.usphs.gov/html/faqs.html#loan)
QuoteTo be accepted as an applicant for the Commissioned Corps, you must:
- Be a U.S. citizen;
- Be under 44 years of age (age may be offset by prior active-duty Uniformed Service time and/or civil service work experience in a PHS agency at a PHS site at a level commensurate with the duties of a commissioned officer);
- Have served less than 8 years of active duty if you are/were a member of another Uniformed Service (Click here to access the Former/Current Uniformed Service Members section);
- Be earning or have earned a qualifying degree from an accredited program per the appointment standards for your professional discipline (general duty officers cannot be called to active duty until they have completed their qualifying degree); and
- Meet medical and licensure/certification/registration requirements. For information on licensure/certification/registration requirements specific to your professional discipline, click the hyperlink for your professional Category listed on the home page.
In addition, commissioned officers are required to:
- Complete a basic suitability clearance. Some officers, such as those hired by the Bureau of Prisons or the Immigration and Naturalization Service, are required to complete a higher level clearance prior to being called to duty. Most officers, however, will actually begin this process after the call to duty.
In many ways, these are even a higher standard than DOD requirements. Granted, we are not technically part of the uniformed services but we do wear the AF-style uniform and ~95+% of the general public can't/don't/won't make that distinction. At the same time, the standards being discussed here are not nearly as rigid as those of the uniformed services either. It's a logical middle ground, especially for an organization that sometimes acts as the official Auxillary of the USAF.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 15, 2007, 03:58:09 PM
We've got to remember that when the military requires degrees it is imposing that requirement on kids in their early 20s who have very little life experience to draw from. At that stage if you've got 2 23 year-olds one of whom with a college degree and one without, there is a pretty good chance that the one with the degree is probably more mature and more capable of taking on more critical positions -- so, that one is the officer.
Commissions can be earned up until a persons 35th birthday. Not all are 23 year olds.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 15, 2007, 03:58:09 PM
Most adults are entering CAP in their 40s or later and we can assume they've already mature individuals who understand the work ethic required for someone in a leadership position.
In many cases that may be true. However, based on my experiences/observations, there are still enough exceptions to make such an assumption dangerous and, thus, warrants changes to address the issue.
ACSC and NSC are nowhere near being equivlant.
Quote from: MajorSER on January 15, 2007, 04:18:34 PM
When you say that LtCol needs ACSC, does that mean if he has NSC that is equivalent or does he need it in addition to?
No he needs to go back & take ACSC, but has time to do so, plus the extension if needed. That 2-3yr timeframe is a loose number up for debate, but some reasonable cap has to be set. The content at RSC is in the first third of OTS, most of NSC is covered by the end plus OBC. Specs for the officer program are in another thread. They're in line w/ AF: PME, duty-performance, TIG (increased to AF avgs).
Quote from: RiverAux on January 15, 2007, 03:58:09 PM
We've got to remember that when the military requires degrees it is imposing that requirement on kids in their early 20s who have very little life experience to draw from. At that stage if you've got 2 23 year-olds one of whom with a college degree and one without, there is a pretty good chance that the one with the degree is probably more mature and more capable of taking on more critical positions -- so, that one is the officer.
Most adults are entering CAP in their 40s or later and we can assume they've already mature individuals who understand the work ethic required for someone in a leadership position.
As someone with a graduate degree this proposal wouldn't affect me one way or the other, but I just don't see any major benefit to CAP here.
As someone who's already in CAP it wouldn't effect you either.
The kid who just finished serving four years in the military is less mature than teh one who spent that time getting hammered four nights a week on his parent's dime? That's the case you're making? The degree is not required by the military to establish maturity. If that were the quality they were going for then they'd raise the age to get a commission & use some other more effective method as a prereq.
Can you do nuclear physics? Has your life experience prepared you to do nuclear physics? The program described here is roughly the AF OTS program, which is at an upper-division to graduate level & delivered at high speed to an audience that's expected to be extremely capable in an academic environment.
There comes a point in the business ladder where you need a degree no matter how much experience or common sense you might have. Education doesn't hold people back, it makes them capable of things they couldn't do w/o it and not because of a piece of paper.
While college doesn't equate into leadership skills, it does translate into a basic level of accepted training that is needed/recognized in the business and military world.
I know Lt Cols that can't write in complete sentences, and have handwriting worse than my 5 year old cousin. They also have no clue as to effectively speak in public. That lack of basic skills in fundamental areas hurt us. Some college requiremetns (from an accredited program mind you...) would help eliminate some of this down the road. (I have no faith in our PD system as it stands, as there seems to be little/no graduation requirement other than breathing and staying awake.)
Quote from: TankerT on January 15, 2007, 06:08:23 PMI know Lt Cols that can't write in complete sentences, and have handwriting worse than my 5 year old cousin. They also have no clue as to effectively speak in public. That lack of basic skills in fundamental areas hurt us.
I know USAF Lt Cols just like that too! I know USAFA graduates that get phisically ill before breifings. I had command who could not write his way out of a wet paper bag and his speaking skills were simply attrocious.
Again...the problme is not the quality of the raw material....but the training they get in the mean time.
Quote from: TankerT on January 15, 2007, 06:08:23 PMSome college requiremetns (from an accredited program mind you...) would help eliminate some of this down the road. (I have no faith in our PD system as it stands, as there seems to be little/no graduation requirement other than breathing and staying awake.)
You just said it! You could require Phd's as a gate keeper to entry....if you don't improve the PDY systems it will not make a bit of difference.
Quote from: TankerT on January 15, 2007, 06:08:23 PM
(I have no faith in our PD system as it stands, as there seems to be little/no graduation requirement other than breathing and staying awake.)
Do you advocate just letting that program rot? That's a program that needs work and upgrading, not abandonment. And we will never get people remotely qualified to meet our needs if we just accept someone elses training, try to make it fit into something of ours and don't provide any of our own.
Let me ask the forum at large this: What is so frightening about improving our initial training? Does the work to set up scare you? Or is it just the general fear of change? I'm betting a lot of the protests to the contrary are going to be for that reason.
People are afraid of change, I get that. Let's acknowledge it and get to work on fixing the problem.
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 15, 2007, 07:02:14 PM
Do you advocate just letting that program rot? That's a program that needs work and upgrading, not abandonment. And we will never get people remotely qualified to meet our needs if we just accept someone elses training, try to make it fit into something of ours and don't provide any of our own.
Let me ask the forum at large this: What is so frightening about improving our initial training? Does the work to set up scare you? Or is it just the general fear of change? I'm betting a lot of the protests to the contrary are going to be for that reason.
People are afraid of change, I get that. Let's acknowledge it and get to work on fixing the problem.
HUH? Where did I state that I advocate just letting the program rot? Never said that. Didn't imply that. I just stated that the current program has no quality control as for who gets credit and who does not. Sitting and breathing isn't training.
I attended a Senior IG course a while back. It was a well run course. AND, there was a nice exam at the end. Not too terrible mind you. But, you really had to be paying attention, and have been participating in the exercises to pass it. (No bump on the log credit there...)
If you didn't notice, NHQ has started to improve our initial training... (it's a step forward...) the new Level I course...
And, they are working on others to my knowledge..
SLS/CLC are in vast need of improvement... mainly from a quality control standpoint. Region Staff College especially. (I would expect that we should have some type of completion/graduation evaluation for someone looking to become a Lt. Col.)
I think this change is good. Change for the sake of change isn't good. Change to meet a need is. I think we have a standards issue when it comes to some of our PD training. (The standard being... you really don't have to learn... you just have to be there....)
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 15, 2007, 07:02:14 PMLet me ask the forum at large this: What is so frightening about improving our initial training? Does the work to set up scare you? Or is it just the general fear of change? I'm betting a lot of the protests to the contrary are going to be for that reason.
I think it's a matter of both the daunting task of setting up improved initial training, and the fear of change.
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 15, 2007, 07:02:14 PMPeople are afraid of change, I get that. Let's acknowledge it and get to work on fixing the problem.
<a href="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fwww.smileycentral.com%252F%253Fpartner%253DZSzeb008%255FZNxdm824YYUS%2526i%253D4%252F4%255F1%255F218%2526feat%253Dprof/page.html" target="_blank">(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_218.gif)
QuoteThe kid who just finished serving four years in the military is less mature than teh one who spent that time getting hammered four nights a week on his parent's dime?
I was comparing 2 23 year-old side by side with no military experience. If I was comparing a person who had completed a 4-year hitch to someone just out of college with no ROTC or other military experience that would be a different story.
My point is that the requirements the military has instilled are based on their general needs and the general composition of their force. CAP's composition is so much skewed towards older, more experienced folks that I don't see college as a being all that relevant.
Say we get two new CAP members, both aged 55. One got a 4-year degree and then went on to a career shuffling papers in the Social Secuirty Dept. The other never went to college, but started their own business and successfully ran it for 30 years before retiring early. Based on that information alone, I would probably say the businessman would probably have more potential to be a good CAP leader.
Then that person should apply for waivers & best of luck to them. The standard in the military has nothing to do with maturity.
I'd also dispute that it's invalid due to age of our recruits. SDFs recruit people in the same age range as us, and they require an associates at company grade, BA/BS at field grade - that's from California, but pretty standard from best I can tell. Now why do you think they make a 50 you Lt have an associates? (they alos had a interesting rule for max ages at each grade level).
Again, education is a necessary requirement in entering a management training program, & it doesn't matter how much experience you have. It is not the only factor, it's not even the most important factor. It's just one thing that's looked at to evaluate your ability to do the training, and your suitability to rise over a career in the leadership pool from which all command slots are picked. You want to stcik in a Sq & focus on the job, that's the enlisted side. You want to be pulled from the field to manage logistics, & work your way thru levels above reality, that's officer work.
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 15, 2007, 07:02:14 PMPeople are afraid of change, I get that. Let's acknowledge it and get to work on fixing the problem.
2nd
Well, actually SDFs are a little bit different than us in that they have maximum enlistment ages and mandatory retirement ages. The details will vary depending on the state but you're not going to see many SDF members over 70 which is common in CAP.
Quote from: TankerT on January 15, 2007, 07:11:19 PM
HUH? Where did I state that I advocate just letting the program rot? Never said that. Didn't imply that. I just stated that the current program has no quality control as for who gets credit and who does not. Sitting and breathing isn't training.
OK, good. I asked because there are people that think we shouldn't work on it at all. I was trying to figure out which camp you were in.
QuoteI attended a Senior IG course a while back. It was a well run course. AND, there was a nice exam at the end. Not too terrible mind you. But, you really had to be paying attention, and have been participating in the exercises to pass it. (No bump on the log credit there...)
That's good to hear. We need to enact that across the board. Not just credit, but meeting standard.
QuoteIf you didn't notice, NHQ has started to improve our initial training... (it's a step forward...) the new Level I course...
I still think that's not enough. Got a friend in the Air Force who has done training for thirteen years. Maybe he's rubbing off on me, but I think training should be organized, well presented, and accounted for. Testing is one of the ways that shows the effectiveness of true training, not just presentations.
QuoteAnd they are working on others to my knowledge..
SLS/CLC are in vast need of improvement... mainly from a quality control standpoint. Region Staff College especially. (I would expect that we should have some type of completion/graduation evaluation for someone looking to become a Lt. Col.)
I will certainly agree there. As I said above there are far too many presentations
instead of taught material. If you don't test, it's not being taught, it's being presented.
QuoteI think this change is good. Change for the sake of change isn't good. Change to meet a need is. I think we have a standards issue when it comes to some of our PD training. (The standard being... you really don't have to learn... you just have to be there....)
Agreed. We need people that are more qualified
before we throw them into a specialty track. And the standard that you mention is for more reality than anything else.
To the forum at large, one thing I've seen numerous times is that we need the enlisted side because not everyone would qualify for officer. To be fair, if someone can't pass an officer course, what kind of enlisted person would they make? Most military enlisted would pass the officer courses that are out there anyway. Do we try "to make it work" for someone who can't? About the only thing that says about us is that respiration and pulse are our only standards.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 15, 2007, 08:16:26 PM
Well, actually SDFs are a little bit different than us in that they have maximum enlistment ages and mandatory retirement ages. The details will vary depending on the state but you're not going to see many SDF members over 70 which is common in CAP.
Yes they do (64-70), as do commercial/airline pilots, & most other professions in which life/property depends on your health, mental accuity, etc. Having flown w/ a couple 70+ command pilots, I think it's a worthy thing to consider. Ca does somethng interesting in transfering them to a state historical society.
That doesn't bear on education though. They're still requiring an associates at company grade & BA at field grade. They are unpaid, military uniformed, in a non-military (http://www.sgaus.org/StatesTNMemphisTrueBlue.htm) but para-military org based on their parent service, & they have a very simliar funtion to CAP in supporting their govt & parent service as professionals.
This entire discussion is nothing new. Every group or organization that has gone through a period of growth, development and increasing sophistication has experienced the same pains. The examples are legion. A look back at many of the professions of today reveals a similar pattern.
Look at it from the perspective of the current crop of practitioners. They see a job they have always done (and in their own opinion done marvelously) being redefined at an entry level different from theirs, and oftentimes with an academic component they had never considered much less achieved. They are usually unable to recognize the changing nature of the task and the environment in which it is performed.
The thing is, they are partially right. A great example is the movie "The Right Stuff". The great test pilots of the post WWII era, among them one of my personal heroes General Yeager, were passed over for a bunch of snot-nosed college boy pilots who increasingly had in addition to their flying ability engineering and advanced technical skills and education. Now, any one of those greats could have flown the hell out of the early Mercury missions. But, by the time the space program had evolved into the Apollo missions it was becoming a very different ball game. Those fellows on Apollo 13 made it back on a measure of luck and a huge dose of pure brain power. It had become a different world.
You want wailing and gnashing of teeth? The elder son, young Marine Sergeant aveighter, Iraq combat vet and private pilot returning home and to AFROTC forced into playing "toy soldier" (his words cleaned up for a general audience) and learning that there are tools other than the bayonet for leading men and accomplishing a mission the AF way. He has learned that there is, indeed, a reason for the educational requirements, that it does in the lager scheme of things make a difference.
If CAP is to survive it must evolve. The days of a couple old farts in a rattle trap airplane tooling along looking out the window are gone. Now it's glass cockpits, satellite systems, complex airspace and interfacing with personnel from a growing array of agencies that are themselves increasingly sophisticated, both military and civilian. Looking out the window is still indicated, but so is a whole lot more. We need to talk that talk, walk that walk and look that look. Places like Iowa Wing recognize this and have adapted. Posters that rail against these changes do not, will not and will be left behind if they do not succeed in destroying the organization first.
Most of the proposals here seem to include a period of change and grand fathering which doesn't run anyone out the door but allows for change over a period of time. Quite reasonable I think.
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 15, 2007, 07:47:53 AM
James,
While I agree with you that we dont need to make members get college credits, I have to disagree with your statement that CAP is not designed to be the military. Look at our history. We were created to augment the military. Backi n those days members didnt wear a "civilian" blue shirt and grey slacks. Everubody wore the Army Air Corps uniform and met the height and weight standards. No questions asked. Either you met it or you couldnt join.
Some where through the year as we recruited peole that didnt want to be affiliated withthe military and the standards changed. For some reason we relaxd our standards.
As I recall, height and weight standards were introduced into CAP in the late 1980's. I don't recall seeing any CAP regulations that required any height and weight standards before that for CAP members, and in fact, I believe the military didn't use height and weight standards during World War II. If a doctor passed you, they took you.
My point is that although CAP has a military like structure, we are civilians. And therein likes the heart of this discussion and the basic personality split of CAP; are we civilians or are we military? Right now, we are legally civilians, period.
Our challenge is to reconcile to John or Jane Member (and to outside observers) the issues that this personality split presents.
The ht/wt standards were introduced in a relaxed version in CAP at the same time as they became necessary in the military. If I'm not mistaken that was right aftrer Korea. I was most certainly long before the 80s. It occured prior to CAP dumping the adult enlisted corps.
Of course we're legally civilians, which is all about not getting paid. If they could figure out how to obligate us to service & bind us to UCMJ w/o paying salary or benifits you can bet your butt they would.
Is it possible though for there to be a legal technicality that makes us civilians & a corporation, but in practice & personality we choose as an organization & culture to behave as though we were in the military? That's the circumstances under which CAP has operated most of its life, & the degredation of those circumstances is a primary wedge factor with the AF.
This stuff is going to happen in one form or another. Outside factors force that case upon us. You're better off at least accepting that as a hypothetical & looking at how we can make it work.
Quote from: DNall on January 16, 2007, 01:19:06 AM
The ht/wt standards were introduced in a relaxed version in CAP at the same time as they became necessary in the military. If I'm not mistaken that was right aftrer Korea. I was most certainly long before the 80s. It occured prior to CAP dumping the adult enlisted corps.
Perhaps the rules existed on paper earlier (though I don't recall seeing them), but it did not start getting pushed hard in CAP till mid 80s.
That may be. You can line up corporate style-uniforms with these marker points. Side issue though. We were founded as a militatry organization doing military missions, have ALWAYS been a para-military org in mil uniform considered combatants by international law (including today) & functioning on funding from & orders of the military in service of military objectives. It really is a technicality that makes us civilians, and that certainly doesn't mean we need to act like it.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 15, 2007, 07:31:30 PMSay we get two new CAP members, both aged 55. One got a 4-year degree and then went on to a career shuffling papers in the Social Security Dept. The other never went to college, but started their own business and successfully ran it for 30 years before retiring early. Based on that information alone, I would probably say the businessman would probably have more potential to be a good CAP leader.
And yet...you want to implement rules that would allow the non leader college graduate to become a CAP leader...but the guy with a lot of leader potential with no degree, must always take a secondary role.
When you guys can come up with a fix to this sort of problem...then I will begin to listen to you and your degree requirement schemes. Don't tell me about gate keeping to reduce costs, or to due to limited availabilty...because right now there is no training and you still have to prove that a degree gatekeeper vs 20 years work experience is valuable.
Easy enough... Education is one small factor among a big written package that has to EARN you an interview, that interview EARNS your way in front of a selection board, where you COMPETE for a limited number of slots. Say one in four gets slected, hopefully we can keep it under 15% failure rate, but it may be high depending on the strength of our selection process.
A PhD in non-profit mgmt, MBA, & BS in SaR mgmt, being a retired PJ, 40 years of corporate experience including being CEO of a fortune 500 company, NONE of this will get you a seat in officer training. These are merely a few of MANY objective & subjective factors wieghed in measuring the whole person to determine if they are a good candidate. IF they are selected & stick it out through the difficult training, then they will be an entry level officer being molded by mentors & good NCOs as they move from menial staff kinds of jobs in support of local units & developed from there to national commander. NCOs run local units & are career field operators. Officers are at base on staff. Does this make sense?
Pardon me for not taking the time to sift through the previous 6 pages to see if this has already been addressed, but...
...remember that CAP Officers can join at 18 years of age. 18 years old (usually) = senior in high school or freshman in college.
Are you going to make all of those people wait two years until they're about 20 and probably then have 2 years of college?
What about those who go from high school into the military, without going to college first? They could not be CAP officers??
QuoteOf course we're legally civilians, which is all about not getting paid. If they could figure out how to obligate us to service & bind us to UCMJ w/o paying salary or benifits you can bet your butt they would.
I doubt that would be their preference though if it was it wouldn't be that big a deal to do since that is the sort of relationship SDFs have in their states -- unpaid, but bound by state military code (yes, some get paid on SAD, but that isn't always the case and is a matter of state choice).
As I pointed out in the Temporary Reserve thread having unpaid volunteers obligated to meet military standards and obligations is nothing new. Heck, for most of our history unpaid militia duty was the norm in the US.
Quote from: CAP428 on January 16, 2007, 02:26:13 AM
Pardon me for not taking the time to sift through the previous 6 pages to see if this has already been addressed, but...
...remember that CAP Officers can join at 18 years of age. 18 years old (usually) = senior in high school or freshman in college.
Are you going to make all of those people wait two years until they're about 20 and probably then have 2 years of college?
What about those who go from high school into the military, without going to college first? They could not be CAP officers??
Well there's consideration of training & experience for the guy in the military that may be equiv depending on what his job was. That determination is made by outside universities, not us.
The key word here though is "officer." A new adult member joins at AB, a redesigned from the ground up very strong Lvl 1 occurs over the first 3-6 months. Everyone does this from 18yo HS student to brain surgeon to retired LtGen. The only dif is prior service can waive the one wknd BMT. At the end you are promoted to Amn, from there you can proceed with an enhanced version of the current adult program that'll take you thru TSgt, or at any time you can apply for OTS. The above is a discussion of education as a valid factor to consider in deciding who gets those management trainee slots & who does not.
Couple wierd exceptions to cover your question.
1) A HS diploma (or equiv) is required for membership. The 18yo HS student can attend Lvl I/BMT but cannot renew or promote to Amn until they have a diploma on file.
2) After Lvl 1, a prior service officer would apply to be appointed in their previous federal grade. That would be reviewed, & generally they will have to take the OBC & tech training to orient & qualify them for specific duties inside CAP. The grade may be withheld till that's done or granted upfront on the condition that it be done within a defined period of time (2 year) or lose grade. That's nothing dif than a refresher & job re-training, they should be expecting that much.
3) All officers will be taking FEMA IS 244 managing volunteers (http://training.fema.gov/emiweb/IS/is244.asp) as part of the OBC. It will also be included at the NCOA or SNCOA levels.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 16, 2007, 02:29:27 AM
QuoteOf course we're legally civilians, which is all about not getting paid. If they could figure out how to obligate us to service & bind us to UCMJ w/o paying salary or benifits you can bet your butt they would.
I doubt that would be their preference though if it was it wouldn't be that big a deal to do since that is the sort of relationship SDFs have in their states -- unpaid, but bound by state military code (yes, some get paid on SAD, but that isn't always the case and is a matter of state choice).
As I pointed out in the Temporary Reserve thread having unpaid volunteers obligated to meet military standards and obligations is nothing new. Heck, for most of our history unpaid militia duty was the norm in the US.
Yeah there's an imaginable point 30 years out in the future where in some hypothetical dream world we could use federally issued Auxiliary commissions & enlistments that function the same way as sstate versions do for SDFs, but right now or in teh foreseeable future that's counter-productive to even mention. The AF isn't going to accept anyting we don't overwhelmingly deserve w/ a long track record to prove it.
Their prefrence is for free labor functioning at or near their own standards to take as much pressure off their budget as possible so they can buy cool cool toys & blow up more crap. UCMJ is hardly ever a meaningful factor in military function - people don't do things to avoid court martial. However, you'll find quickly that accountability goes hand in hand with trust & opportunity.
Quote from: DNall on January 16, 2007, 02:19:23 AM
Easy enough... Education is one small factor among a big written package that has to EARN you an interview, that interview EARNS your way in front of a selection board, where you COMPETE for a limited number of slots. Say one in four gets slected, hopefully we can keep it under 15% failure rate, but it may be high depending on the strength of our selection process.
A PhD in non-profit mgmt, MBA, & BS in SaR mgmt, being a retired PJ, 40 years of corporate experience including being CEO of a fortune 500 company, NONE of this will get you a seat in officer training. These are merely a few of MANY objective & subjective factors wieghed in measuring the whole person to determine if they are a good candidate. IF they are selected & stick it out through the difficult training, then they will be an entry level officer being molded by mentors & good NCOs as they move from menial staff kinds of jobs in support of local units & developed from there to national commander. NCOs run local units & are career field operators. Officers are at base on staff. Does this make sense?
No....I still don't see any value added to our program. The level of quality of officers is just not needed for our program. You are still under the misconception that "if you build it they will come". While this is true to a point....no matter how qualified our officer corps is there is only so far we will be able to take on more USAF missions.
It would be like hiring a Phd to do english 101...sure he is very qualified to do the job...he will never be asked to do Phd work.
In the mean time a lot of great undergrads and grad students go elsewhere because they can't get into the door.
Let's focus on what we do. If you fly...do you need 60+ hours of college? No. If you run a typical squadron do you need 60+ hours of college? No.
So you want to build an OTS that is hard to get into, hard to pass and makes you hard core nail eating 2d Lt. Who is going to expend that type of effort for a hobby?
And that is the key here.......CAP is a hobby. That does not mean we are not professional nor are should we not be held to professional standards....it is still a hobby.
Guys:
You all are starting to sound like lawyers looking for a loophole.
"What about the natual-born genius who started a Fortune 500 company whaile still in high school in his parents' basement, discovered a vaccine for AIDS in high school chemistry class, and sailed around he world solo by his 21st birthday? You mean HE can't be a 2nd Lt. in CAP because he didn't go to college? I've got a dozen guys like that in my unit!"
College may not be the final test or measure of a man, but it is an objective standard by which we measure people in society. College achievement is documentary proof of at least reasonable literacy, the ability to plan and organize work, meet deadlines, and manage various demands from multiple sources.
"All I did was party and get drunk at keg parties in college."
Then if that's all you remember doing, and you still earned a degree, then we can add "Creative time management" to the list of qualities that a degree assures.
We are talking about IMPROVING the CAP officer corps. This means a major improvement, not a "Tweak" to the Profesional Development system.
And Dennis: Pop me an e-mail by PM with a good e-mail address for you. I will send you the draft of the paper that I've written so far.
I graduated from a University... I was one of the few actually studying in the library. I lived the life of a monk (save for my musical performances)
It was a truly sad period of my life that are among the loneliest chapters of my life... EXCEPT for CAP.
I joined CAP when I was in my last years at the University. The idea of it blew me away. I could serve my nation and community in a unique way.
I guess the debate on College Degrees doesn't effect me either way...but I can see both side of the issue. CAP was there for me before I was "somebody," but it was my graduation that made me a teacher. Now that I teach and have earned a place in CAP I find life would be less interesting without it.
I will say this, however, CAP is a volunteer service driven program. Those that do best do so because they want to be there. Because they enjoy the service of it...when this ends so does their "active status." Muddy the waters and most people will head for shore, leaving the rest to wallow and drown in overburdened tides of ineffectiveness.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 16, 2007, 05:42:11 AMWe are talking about IMPROVING the CAP officer corps. This means a major improvement, not a "Tweak" to the Profesional Development system.
If you want to improve the CAP officer corps....fix the problem. There is nothing wrong with our raw material, it is the training, mentorship and accountability that is lacking.
Sure we get a few bad apples...but if we improve our training, mentorship and accountability we will either train them to standards or freeze them in place at the appropriate level of training.
Gate keepers like this are stupid.....I'll say it again...it is stupid. It does not solve the problems at hand and it will lock out a large number of our members from ever becoming part of the solution....AND that WILL hurt us in the long run.
Make the training harder....by all means....make the training more intesive....make meeting the standards of the training necessary for completion....gods I wish. But arbitrary outside of the box gate keepers are not the way to go.
You may be able to find you 6000 officers...but you will loose about 90% of all the rest. The non college CAP members will be treated as second class citizens (see the Flight Officers as an example). They will never be able to hold command or high policy office because they have not the time or money to go back and get some useless degree (and it is useless to them or they would have already gotten one).
Degrees for USAF officers make some sense because you are dealing with 21-22 year old kids. There are not many ways that you can assess how successful they will be in the USAF. So a degree shows a certain level of critical thinking and perseverance. But CAP is not the USAF (I know you want to make it that...but we digress).
You envision some great new CAP with a professional officer corps and hoards of worker bees NCO/Enlisted. But what you don't realize is that....unlike the USAF where there is plenty of work for everyone no matter what rank they hold.....what will CAP AB's be doing? You are going to ask some 55 year old CFI, business man that he has got be an AB and that because he did not have the forethought to go to college...that he can never hope to help lead his squadron.
This guy is going to walk and go form a BSA explorer post and put us out of a job!
Lord M:
You talk about "Gatekeeper" requirements as somehow being bad, but doesn't your alternative plan simply move the gate farther down the road?
Instead of screening officers at the beginning, when they enter the system, you would have the "Bad apples" as you call them enter a toughened officer development program, and then fail to meet the requirements.
Why not apply some standard predictors of success in completing training requirements at the beginning, and move the well-intentioned but poorly prepared individuals into jobs that are a better fit for them? If a person has completed either 2 years of college, OR a substantial amount of vocational training, he has already demonstrated the ability to exist somewhere between survival and excellence in a training environment.
I would suggest to you that all of the exceptional examples you point out would meet the educational threshhold we propose for accession of CAP officers. The existence of a high school grad with no training or education beyond high school with the drive, motivation, ability, and financial resources to become a CAP officer would be a rarer bird than the kiwi.
Question - what would be expected from a CAP Lt Col that would not be expected from a CAP 1st Lt?
So far, all this discussin has come down to a single discriminator - NCOs won't command units, but officers will.
Okay, that means we only need two grades in CAP - SSgt and 2d Lt! Because all we're designating is "folks who can (but don't have to) command units" and folks who can't command units."
In the real military, every job has a rank tied to it. You don't get to hold a job many levels above your pay grade, nor many levels below.
Do you propose to make CAP work that way?
What will this CAP Lt Col have to do in his CAP job that the 2d Lt (or SSgt) won't?
Define "Unit."
I could have a 2LT command a flight or a squadron, but do you want a guy with one or two years in the organization running a group? Or your wing?
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 16, 2007, 02:33:32 PM
Define "Unit."
I could have a 2LT command a flight or a squadron, but do you want a guy with one or two years in the organization running a group? Or your wing?
Funny you should mention that, we have all sorts of folks with but a few (3 or 4) years in CAP running wings...and no, these are NOT former field grade military officers
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 16, 2007, 02:07:55 PM
Lord M:
You talk about "Gatekeeper" requirements as somehow being bad, but doesn't your alternative plan simply move the gate farther down the road?
Sure it does...but the gatekeeper standard is based solely on demonstrated proficiency and is not base on hose of economic/social factors that drive whether a person goes to college or not.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 16, 2007, 02:07:55 PMInstead of screening officers at the beginning, when they enter the system, you would have the "Bad apples" as you call them enter a toughened officer development program, and then fail to meet the requirements.
Yep....that is called an objective skills based standard.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 16, 2007, 02:07:55 PMWhy not apply some standard predictors of success in completing training requirements at the beginning, and move the well-intentioned but poorly prepared individuals into jobs that are a better fit for them? If a person has completed either 2 years of college, OR a substantial amount of vocational training, he has already demonstrated the ability to exist somewhere between survival and excellence in a training environment.
Because if we are talking about comparing two 22 year olds you would be correct....but we are not talking about 22 year olds. We are talking about people between the ages of 18 and 75! Your predictor is useless in that vast of a demographic. If you have any eduction background you would know that adult education is vastly different than secondary and undergraduate education. The motivations, work ethic and abilities are very different. You assume that just because someone did not go to college he cannot do as well as someone who has...that may be true...if everthing else is equal...but what we should be focusing on is the standards that we wish these people to operate at. Everyone should be given the opprotunity to meet these standards.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 16, 2007, 02:07:55 PMI would suggest to you that all of the exceptional examples you point out would meet the educational threshhold we propose for accession of CAP officers. The existence of a high school grad with no training or education beyond high school with the drive, motivation, ability, and financial resources to become a CAP officer would be a rarer bird than the kiwi.
Unless you have some way of translating life experience into college credit....I don't think they do.
Lord M:
You seem to be focusing on the word "College." The proposed requirement would include college, pilot training, and vocational training. The 19 - 21 year old SHOULD demonstrate the capability of performing in a training environment past high school, for the very reason you mention.
The 21 through 70 year old, assuming he has done something with his life other than play rock music in his parents' basement, will have attended an apprenticeship program, job-related training classes, vocational school, or some similar program, even if he has not gone to a college or university.
My son is a good example. He started out in college, took a few semesters, then (like a dummy) got married. He had a few retail management jobs, which entailed classes that he had to attend, and then he got a job as a flight attenant. He had a month full-time in Florida in training, and has had mandatory in-service training sessions several times each year.
If he were to apply for CAP officer rank, I'm sure the total of his training and schooling would put him over the proposed educational threshhold.
My question is, if we have a 28 or 29 year old applying who finished high school, and has never sat in any kind of a classroom since, don't we already know that he will have problems in a toughened PD program? And if such a person is out there, it it likely that he has the financial resources to be a CAP officer anyway? Isn't it likely that his job will be so low-paying that the cost of dues and uniforms would come from the family's food budget? The tax deductability of CAP expenses is meaningless when your income is so low that you don't pay taxes anyway!
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 16, 2007, 04:38:31 PM
My question is, if we have a 28 or 29 year old applying who finished high school, and has never sat in any kind of a classroom since, don't we already know that he will have problems in a toughened PD program?
No we don't. That is my point. And if he does fail...at least he failed for his lack of ability and not some more or less arbitrary lack of "preparation".
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 16, 2007, 04:38:31 PMAnd if such a person is out there, it it likely that he has the financial resources to be a CAP officer anyway?
Now are you suggesting that we screen applicants to insure they can afford CAP? Anyone who shows up at my door should be given the opprotunity to compete for leadership positions no matter what their history (barring criminal activity).
You are penalising people for decisions they made and/or had no control over when they were 18 years of age.
Listen....you will never be able to convince me that there is a need to have a college (or college credit) for joining. Unless you can come up with a fair, comprehensive and objective method of determining what sort of life experinces, apprentership programs, training programs and what not count toward your college equivancy.
Let me see that...and maybe we may be onto something.
In theory, a person in CAP wants to be in CAP and would thus be motivated to take the PD. A person in college is the same motivation, if they can afford to go. Those that drop out of college for academic sloth, and not financial reason, may not have really wanted to go in the first place or were not paying for it.
Those that fail due to poor intellectual capailities are a differnet story.
Hobby? The auxiliary of the Unites States Air Force is just a hobby?
Gentlemen, take your proposals and ideas to other venues. This is the hobbyist forum. No serious standards required or desired.
I hope 1st AF isn't looking.
Quote from: aveighter on January 17, 2007, 03:48:35 AM
Hobby? The auxiliary of the Unites States Air Force is just a hobby?
Not
just a hobby, but a hobby still the same. CAP is not anyone's job here. It is done in your freetime on your own free will. Something
extra you do. Thus, it is a "hobby."
The only reason we don't like calling it that is that it makes it sound like it is something that doesn't really matter, and we all like to think what we are doing here
does matter, thus my distinction between
just a hobby and "hobby."
Quote from: CAP428 on January 17, 2007, 04:17:24 AM
CAP is not anyone's job here. It is done in your freetime on your own free will.
Really? :D
Quote from: aveighter on January 17, 2007, 03:48:35 AM
Hobby? The auxiliary of the Unites States Air Force is just a hobby?
Gentlemen, take your proposals and ideas to other venues. This is the hobbyist forum. No serious standards required or desired.
I hope 1st AF isn't looking.
aveighter...do you get paid to be a member of the CAP? Then it is a hobby. Does that mean we don't have to have serious standards? Heck no...and if you go back and read my whole post you will see I said just that.
But that still does not negate the fact that it is a part time hobby. People do it because they like to do it. It is not a job nor is it a career.
You can still be a professional in all that you do...but don't make it out to be anything that it is not.
I think I ought to sell the last few posts to Garmin. If general aviation pilots knew that CAP officers had no more committment to their duties than they do to their golf game, sales of GPS units, and survival kits, would skyrocket.
Okay...what do you call something that you do in your spare time and don't get paid for it?
Hobby.
That is 90% of the problem I have with many of you all's ideas about reforming CAP. It is a hobby. It is an important hobby where we help people, train cadets and educate the public about the benefits of air power.
But is is still a hobby.
If you don't like the word hobby...how about club?
I can hear the groans of angst right now!
Quote from: Dragoon on January 16, 2007, 02:24:46 PM
Question - what would be expected from a CAP Lt Col that would not be expected from a CAP 1st Lt?
So far, all this discussin has come down to a single discriminator - NCOs won't command units, but officers will.
Okay, that means we only need two grades in CAP - SSgt and 2d Lt! Because all we're designating is "folks who can (but don't have to) command units" and folks who can't command units."
In the real military, every job has a rank tied to it. You don't get to hold a job many levels above your pay grade, nor many levels below.
Do you propose to make CAP work that way?
What will this CAP Lt Col have to do in his CAP job that the 2d Lt (or SSgt) won't?
Actually, NCOs very much can & will command local units, as will senior 1Lt-junior Capts, but not SrA, 2Lts, or Majors. That's the operational leadership point, SSgt-TSgt & 1Lt-Capt. And, yes to the greatest extent possible grades & positions will be tied together. We can't do it as effectively as the military because we can move people around, but to the greatest extent possible we'll stick to the system. If there are exceptions they'll be as minor as we can make them & watched closely.
SSgt under this system equates to level 4 in the current PD program & 10 years TIS, takes Gill Rob Wilson & 3 more years to make TSgt. 1Lt means you've been in CAP 3-5 years, have a couple years college, been selected 3 times by a review board including an AF field grade officer, and graduated Lvl1/BMT (3-6mos), OTS (12mos), OBC focused on your broad career field (in-res), and have a tech rating in your primary job, plus you've served 1.5-3.5 years on what amounts to Group Staff. Those, on both the officer & enlisted side, are the minimum standards for what amounts to a deputy commander or ES officer type slot.
Most officers won't be assigned to local units & NCOs will have priority in those slots. NCO also lead the way on ES & run the local cadet program. Officers get exposed to ES by earning a rating & doing it for a couple years, but after that will rarely be allowed in the field except to stay current & familiar. Instead they will be training long & hard for the ICS staff positions back at base, & relying on the expert field operators (enlisted) to actually accomplish the mission. On the day-to-day stuff, they'll be on a mini-group level staff doing all the positions in 20-1 that you can't fill & lifting all the staff load up off your unit it can laser focus on just the missions while doing only the most necessary admin/personnel/testing functions locally.
Field grade officer, like Iowa, get pulled up to Gp/Wing staff slots, or reserve billets with those units or the Wg reserve (holding) unit. NCOs & junior officers CAN work in positions above the levels I just stated, but it would be commensurate with their grade & ability, and they cannot fill command slots they don't fit.
The officer corps being discussed here is primarily for levels above local (reality). It is about filling ICS slots in place of & in charge of paid emergency responders, not cause we're cool, but cause that individual is a very experienced trained leader/officer who has dedicated many years exclusively to doing that one ICS position. It's also about having real leadership all the way up the chain with people you can respect & know they earned their place with hard work smarts & merit with the AF having a say at every promotion. It's about being capable of running a 50-80k member non-profit organization and the AFAux, and not only accountable but proud to show results in an inspection. It's about gaining the trust of Congress & the AF in the quality of our people so that we in turn gain the equipment &/or opportunities to truly serve the real needs of our country & to act as a force multiplier to the AF in time of war & tight budgets, as well as marching forward on a strategic vision for full partnership in the total-AF.
Hobby?You can describe CAP as a hobby & our members as volunteers. It's not hard to stretch to those definitions. You can also describe it as being in the service of the military & country, which is not a hobby, but an obligation of duty upon which people desperately depend on your actions for their lives. To that end you can look at a volunteer firefighter, who is not participating in a hobby, regardless of pay. You can also call our members volunteers, though they take part in skilled professional service, and the word volunteer implies a person off the street with no training or qualification. In short, we understand CAP members don't get paid, but it is very harmful to the organization to use those words in describing a level of service they do not describe.
Gatekeepers?A quick word back on education... When you take charge of people you have two choices. 1) care about being liked, be soft on them, and worry of your letting them have enough fun; or 2) set strict standards from the first & make swift corrections the firs time anyone waivers. In the first example, your limits will be tested & by allowing people freedom to do as they wish you sacrifice your right to have authority over them & things get out of hand quickly. Reclaiming that authority can't be done quickly in an emergency & when done requires stomping on them. Ultimately these people will enjoy themselves the least. In the second example, you've established tight boundaries & enforced them when the testing was small so you've overall applied the least force & the least amount of times to get the results you want. These people will ultimately be happier in the structured program with strong leadership. That doesn't have anything to do with the military, UCMJ, or any other related issue, it predates them. It should be applied to volunteers as well as paid employees. And, the AF believes in it.
Now I say that because we have to pick who goes to officer training (the pipeline to upper level management), and who stays down at the local units doing the front line work of CAP. If you put an unqualified person in that training and they fail, then they're gone. You put that same person on track to be an NCO leader, and you can get the most out of them. If they do a super job in that process & prove themselves to be great leaders, then you can recommend them for a waiver & make you case to the selection board that they deserve chance to be an officer, and if they deserve it they'll get it the shot, even if it means a PhD has to wait their turn.
Quote from: DNall on January 17, 2007, 10:08:50 AMActually, NCOs very much can & will command local units, as will senior 1Lt-junior Capts, but not SrA, 2Lts, or Majors. That's the operational leadership point, SSgt-TSgt & 1Lt-Capt. And, yes to the greatest extent possible grades & positions will be tied together. We can't do it as effectively as the military because we can move people around, but to the greatest extent possible we'll stick to the system. If there are exceptions they'll be as minor as we can make them & watched closely.
If both NCOs and Junior Officers can do the same jobs and fill the same slots, then you don't need both. Just make everyone junior officers and be done with it.
Quote from: DNall on January 17, 2007, 10:08:50 AM
Most officers won't be assigned to local units & NCOs will have priority in those slots. NCO also lead the way on ES & run the local cadet program. Officers get exposed to ES by earning a rating & doing it for a couple years, but after that will rarely be allowed in the field except to stay current & familiar. Instead they will be training long & hard for the ICS staff positions back at base, & relying on the expert field operators (enlisted) to actually accomplish the mission. On the day-to-day stuff, they'll be on a mini-group level staff doing all the positions in 20-1 that you can't fill & lifting all the staff load up off your unit it can laser focus on just the missions while doing only the most necessary admin/personnel/testing functions locally.
The minute you tell officers that they can't fly missions anymore or chase ELTs in the dark and have to work mission staff, you'll have a revolt. Today, some of our most critical HLS missions are being flown by former Wing and Region Commanders!
This is the problem that CAP must deal with - people wish to work at all levels of the system, and move freely between those levels as their desires and schedules change. They aren't going to be pigeon-holed into a limited set of functions based on what's on their collar.
Quote from: DNall on January 17, 2007, 10:08:50 AM
Field grade officer, like Iowa, get pulled up to Gp/Wing staff slots, or reserve billets with those units or the Wg reserve (holding) unit. NCOs & junior officers CAN work in positions above the levels I just stated, but it would be commensurate with their grade & ability, and they cannot fill command slots they don't fit.
That kind of "up or out" policy works fine in the Guard and Reserve where money is changing hands. But for volunteers, when the Lt Col wants to take a break and work at the squadron as a staffer, you're going to tell him "No, you have to commute 100 miles to work on Group staff?"
I really don't think this is a viable model for the organization. It gives up the inherent flexibility of a group of volunteers with a wide range of talents and differing levels of commitment.
Position based rank might work better, as it allows you to change your status from Field Grade Officer/Mission Staff back to Junior Officer/Ground Team Leader and back again as you move through your CAP years.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 17, 2007, 06:49:15 AM
Okay...what do you call something that you do in your spare time and don't get paid for it?
Hobby.
That is 90% of the problem I have with many of you all's ideas about reforming CAP. It is a hobby. It is an important hobby where we help people, train cadets and educate the public about the benefits of air power.
But is is still a hobby.
If you don't like the word hobby...how about club?
I can hear the groans of angst right now!
For some, CAP is a hobby. For others, it is an extra-curricular activity. It all depends on the person. I don't think we can argue about whether or not CAP is a hobby if CAP means something different for each person.
A hobby is something that someone enjoys doing in their spare time. Not all members of CAP enjoy it, though I'd venture to say that most do. I know I did, although I never did put CAP down as a hobby on my resume.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 17, 2007, 06:49:15 AM
Okay...what do you call something that you do in your spare time and don't get paid for it?
Hobby.
That is 90% of the problem I have with many of you all's ideas about reforming CAP. It is a hobby. It is an important hobby where we help people, train cadets and educate the public about the benefits of air power.
But it is still a hobby.
If you don't like the word hobby...how about club?
I can hear the groans of angst right now!
Maybe not angst, but there are several here who now are slapping their foreheads after a big glass of cold reality water just hit them in the face. And at last, and with clarity, the reasons for the vast gulf between world views is revealed.
For many, this is just good clean fun. Take some extra time you would otherwise waste sitting in front of the sewer outlet (network TV) and go do some cool things. Play with great toys, wear neat clothing and sport some really excellent titles! And, do it all with low entry requirements, minimal standards and few ongoing expectations. Yeah it costs a few bucks, but what the heck, a great hobby isn't cheap and clubs have dues, after all.
For others it is far more serious. It is the fulfillment of a societal obligation, a duty if you will. An opportunity to step forward, raise your hand and say "take me, I'll go" knowing full well the full import of the act. To volunteer, to step forward and shoulder an obligation when you know you don't have to. For this honor some are paid, some are not. The guys of WWII in their rickety planes wheezing off the ground with a bomb strapped between the gear were not hobbyists. They were volunteers that saw a job that needed to be done and got with it. They didn't find a hundred reasons not to perform, they found solutions to problems standing between them and where they needed to go.
So there you have it. On the one hand there are the serious ones that understand the situation, as an organization and as a nation, see the obstacles arrayed against us and have come up with some original and, in some cases, quite elegant solutions to the problems and are chomping at the bit to get on with it. They understand that time is precious, and time is short. On the other hand you have the hobbyists, wonderful fellows to be sure, that see all this commotion as one giant wet blanket thrown over the party and pegging the fun meter somewhere left of zero.
The solution? I mean a real actual workable solution? Split the organization. Corporate CAP for the cadet programs, AE and community service types and USAF auxiliary CAP for mission oriented, requirements based and accountable standards types. I honestly don't see any other way because as we have seen, the world views are so diametrically opposed. Short of a national level disaster analogous to the Nazi sub fleet ravaging the east coast I just don't see the motivation necessary to come together as an effective force happening. Quite frankly given the current state of affairs, with the exception of a few units here and there I don't think anyone at the national response level sees the organization as anything more than "Oh yeah, there are some civil air patrol people somewhere and I think they maybe have some little planes or something".
By that time, of course, it will be too late.
I think you mis-understand me....as I have said all along. I am mission oriented, accountable and professional in my conduct. But it is still a hobby. I have never said that we should split off the programs...nor do I think that there are those who are not serous about what we do or think that our missions are not important.
But it is still a hobby by definition. So what does that mean? It means our members have other obligations that come first! Any volunteer (in the unpaid sense of the word) program must take that into consideration when developing its plans and programs.
So you want to turn CAP into a NG light....good goal. It won't work because no one can devote the time it takes to develop that sort of organization. AND we will never have a need to work at that level.
Yes the NG does a good job of developing good leaders on one weekend a month and two weeks a year. But they also have a lot of full time members who take care of the day to day operations, training and planning. They also pay for their members to do the required training.
One of the great parts of the Iowa Plan is that they do just that. Come to training and it will not cost you a dime. If you are new all we ask is six weekends and you will be on your way.
Requiring degrees (or the equivalent if you to play semantic games) only locks out a significant portion of you available pool of volunteers. Creating more meaningful training is great...but if you don't remember that your volunteers are in it as a hobby and plan accordingly, you will quickly burn them out and waste all your efforts.
If you bog down your leaders with a lot of useless attendance tracking and administration BS you take away from their limited time they have to devote to the important duties of running their squadrons.
Now you may not like the term hobby because it carries connotations of something that takes up a lot of time but in the long run has no real value. But in the end analysis it is the same. Whether you like the hobby, club or non-paid service organisation....it all boils down to the same thing. We are unpaid...we only have a finite amount of time to devote to the program...we are here for many reasons, but if we are no longer enjoying ourselves then we are going to quit.
Quote from: Dragoon on January 17, 2007, 02:30:39 PM
If both NCOs and Junior Officers can do the same jobs and fill the same slots, then you don't need both. Just make everyone junior officers and be done with it.
WOs & officers both fly side by side in the Army. Why do we need both? The NCO in this case is a senior enlisted leader taking the job on the basis of sheer experience & a proven record or performance. The junior officer selected tot hat role is has spent half their CAP life in training & is selected to these slots when there are good NCOs there to develop them or when there are not enough NCOs there to cover the unit needs. This is a development position for the officer to prepare them for bigger things.
QuoteThe minute you tell officers that they can't fly missions anymore or chase ELTs in the dark and have to work mission staff, you'll have a revolt. Today, some of our most critical HLS missions are being flown by former Wing and Region Commanders!
You ever seen a FW/CC in the AF? They sure as hell fly, but that's not their job anymore, they only get to do it after the job is done & their people are taken care of.
Field grade officers can participate, but that's not their function in the org. They come into the system eyes open knowing that this is the route to IC, not lots of flying, and that CAP is a cog in a big integrated emergency response machine that they are asking to play a part in. They're sold on a vision of leadership, not the field work. If they want to focus on a local unit & missions, enlisted is the way to go, & that's a choice everyone will have to make. If they don't want to be an officer anymore, they can resign & go down to enlisted.
QuoteThis is the problem that CAP must deal with - people wish to work at all levels of the system, and move freely between those levels as their desires and schedules change. They aren't going to be pigeon-holed into a limited set of functions based on what's on their collar.
Sure they will, within reason. If you noticed the way I explained the system, it still didn't say they'd be assigned a role commensurate with their grade, just that if the LtCol wants to be an Assistant TCO that he has to do it on Wg or Gp Staff cause he can't be assigned lower then that. You might still get a situation where a LtCol works for a Major, but not one where a fresh Lt commands half a dozen LtCols. It reduces the problem to manageable. That's not to say they can't attend meetings around the corner from the house or help out there, they just can't hold a position or interfere with the chain.
QuoteThat kind of "up or out" policy works fine in the Guard and Reserve where money is changing hands. But for volunteers, when the Lt Col wants to take a break and work at the squadron as a staffer, you're going to tell him "No, you have to commute 100 miles to work on Group staff?"
A lot of Gps are arranged now with bad span of control. In fixing that you may have a shorter distance to travel. My Gp staff though meets face-to-face 3 times a year & does everything else by monthly conference call. Wg staff is only for Christmas & Conference, otherwise on the phone. The best case would be to follow Iowa a bit further & do a quarterly drill wknd at the Gp level.
QuotePosition based rank might work better, as it allows you to change your status from Field Grade Officer/Mission Staff back to Junior Officer/Ground Team Leader and back again as you move through your CAP years.
That may correct the appearance, but the appearance isn't the problem. The issue is the people sitting in those chairs have no idea what they're doing. Sq CC slots aren't Captain because it just looks right to have a Captain there. It's associated with Captain because that's the level of training, evaluation, experience, grooming. etc it takes to develop a person capable of doing that job at an acceptable level. That's what grade is supposed to reflect is that level of capability as you're groomed & developed up.
As strange as this sounds, functionally it's less different than you think. The system still adapts to people's various points in life. Also, you'll find looking around that most other organizations work like this too. You have to streamline operations for the local unit, support those operations close to the ground with well resourced staffing, and drag talent up out of there to populate the executive layer as people are developed over their careers. Our problem is we require too much of local units on every front & all of it detracts from the mission, and we do almost nothing to fix the leadership deficit above Sq. Is this perfect, no, but it addresses the problem in a fairly conventional & standardized way that's proven successful with volunteers all over the country. I think it's the right way to go.
LM et al:
Skipping the hobby bit, cause I don't care how you define the word...
1) we can't split cause ES alone isn;'t worth a dime, nor is cadet programs or AE. Only as a package is it something worth buying. All these efforts to imporve the situation will still not make any piece along worth paying for - it's like those commercials on TV "act now & we'll throw in a dinky cadet program & some AE crap that looks good on paper." They just aren't goingt o pay for ES w/o CP & that's a fact. You split it off, the CP/AE will go to ACA where it'll fit right in & you'll find they have officer standards amazingly like those being proposed, considering that was one a few things we looked real hard at.
2) NG light, that would be SDF? I'd call it more like Reserve-light if you have to go that route, but as I've said repeatedly, this is not turning us into the military, it's standing up both operational & organization leadership in terms our benefactor understands for express purposes that we have to achieve to survive & grow strong. We do need that level of capability right now. Whay you think CAP is as jacked up as it is? If asnything, it's harder to run CAP than a military command of 53k. As to the time, CAP members already put in the same or more hours than a wknd/mo 2wks a year. None of what's being proposed has asked for a second more time than people are putting in right now.
Quote from: DNall on January 18, 2007, 02:07:47 AMWOs & officers both fly side by side in the Army. Why do we need both?
You don't know the Army very well, do ya?
Warrant Officers fly. Commissioned Officers command.
Warrant Officers fill certain technical slots like Check Pilot. Officers hold down all the primary staff jobs in the unit (S1, 2, 3, 4, etc.)
Different Grades for different jobs.
Quote from: DNall on January 18, 2007, 02:07:47 AM
Field grade officers can participate, but that's not their function in the org. They come into the system eyes open knowing that this is the route to IC, not lots of flying, and that CAP is a cog in a big integrated emergency response machine that they are asking to play a part in. They're sold on a vision of leadership, not the field work. If they want to focus on a local unit & missions, enlisted is the way to go, & that's a choice everyone will have to make. If they don't want to be an officer anymore, they can resign & go down to enlisted.
So you're advocating position based rank? :D
I think you're going to find that some of our most senior members do both. They are senior staffers AND the guy who answers the ELT call at 2 a.m. In a typical week, they do both field grade and junior NCO duties. They, in many cases, keep the whole thing running. I'm not sure we want to squelch that just to look more Air Force-y.
Quote from: DNall on January 18, 2007, 02:07:47 AM
A lot of Gps are arranged now with bad span of control. In fixing that you may have a shorter distance to travel. My Gp staff though meets face-to-face 3 times a year & does everything else by monthly conference call. Wg staff is only for Christmas & Conference, otherwise on the phone. The best case would be to follow Iowa a bit further & do a quarterly drill wknd at the Gp level.
Perhaps. I've found that the best Group and Wing Leaders and staff are those who travel around and visit units. Something many field grades may not have time to do. Meaning they hold the rank, but can't really do the job.
Quote from: DNall on January 18, 2007, 02:07:47 AM
QuotePosition based rank might work better, as it allows you to change your status from Field Grade Officer/Mission Staff back to Junior Officer/Ground Team Leader and back again as you move through your CAP years.
That may correct the appearance, but the appearance isn't the problem. The issue is the people sitting in those chairs have no idea what they're doing. Sq CC slots aren't Captain because it just looks right to have a Captain there. It's associated with Captain because that's the level of training, evaluation, experience, grooming. etc it takes to develop a person capable of doing that job at an acceptable level. That's what grade is supposed to reflect is that level of capability as you're groomed & developed up.
I would completely agree. You're looking for a particular set of competencies and experience.
But...if that experienced Captain then wants to work as a Lt, then I say make him a Lt! Save the Captain's bars for the next experienced, competent guy to take the Captain job.
In other words, you don't just pin the bars on anyone. PD advancement would specify whether or not someone was qualified to be a Captain or not. But.... they'd also have to be willing to serve at that level. In CAP you cannot demand that they do so. You've already discussed turning an officer back into an NCO -what about turning him back into a lower-ranking officer if he doesn't want to work up high any more?
Quote from: DNall on January 18, 2007, 02:07:47 AM
If asnything, it's harder to run CAP than a military command of 53k. As to the time, CAP members already put in the same or more hours than a wknd/mo 2wks a year.
I'll let the Commander of the XXVIII Airborne Corps know the low esteem you hold him in.
Also, if you think any good Reserve or National Guard leader puts in the bare minimum 2 days/month and 2 weeks a year......you are rather mistaken. These guys are working all month long in the evenings to make those 2 days run well.
More importantly, I'm afraid you just successfully argued that we should not give out rank for active duty officers, because CAP leadership will be much harder than anything they've experienced at that paygrade. Nope, they should start from the bottom until we've trained them to handle our "harder" leadership challenges.
Be careful - yes, CAP leadership is "herding cats," and that comes with its own headaches. But it ain't even CLOSE to active duty command. So much less is expected of a CAP commander in terms of unit performances, personnel and logistical accountability etc. And then there's the whole "folks trying to kill you" bit.
CAP Leadership and Military Leadership are very different. And the organizational structure and rank system are probably best being different as well.
Quote from: DNall on January 18, 2007, 02:07:47 AM
You ever seen a FW/CC in the AF? They sure as hell fly, but that's not their job anymore, they only get to do it after the job is done & their people are taken care of.
Negative ghost rider! The Wing king's job is the mission. He has squadron commanders and first sergeants to take care of the people.
Wing kings must maintain their proficiencies just like the the lowly Lt's.
His job is the Wing doing the mission. If the Lts aren't staying qual'd the boss better not be drilling holes in the sky. Running the org is his first responsibility & flying comes second. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure he gets his flying in, but not at the cost of the unit.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 18, 2007, 05:49:09 AM
Wing kings must maintain their proficiencies just like the the lowly Lt's.
Not exactly.
Generally, most Wing CC's are only going to be BMC or HDIP-fliers (and fly with an IP when they do fly).
(NOTE: At least that was the set up in the flying wings I've been in.) That being said, it would only take a little work for them to get back to CMR.
Quote from: Dragoon on January 18, 2007, 03:04:33 AM
You don't know the Army very well, do ya?
Warrant Officers fly. Commissioned Officers command.
Warrant Officers fill certain technical slots like Check Pilot. Officers hold down all the primary staff jobs in the unit (S1, 2, 3, 4, etc.)
Different Grades for different jobs.
I have been in many units where Warrants held staff positions. I know many Commissioned Officers that fly, go to Fort Rucker or any post that supports air and there are more Lt's and Capt's flying than Warrant Officers. That is a huge misconception that there are more warrant officer pilots in the army. I think it has something to do with the National Guard pushing warrant officer flight training heavy these days.
Army Warrant Officers are technical specialists, while Commissioned Officers are branch generalists. Up until 3 years ago, Warrant Officer was it's own branch, now those guys get to choose what branch they want to go in the Army. I always believed the whole Warrant Officer thing was a dated practice. Since they have all the rights and responsibilities as their Commissioned counterparts, I always thought just make them a 2LT.
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 18, 2007, 09:06:05 AM
Quote from: Dragoon on January 18, 2007, 03:04:33 AM
You don't know the Army very well, do ya?
Warrant Officers fly. Commissioned Officers command.
Warrant Officers fill certain technical slots like Check Pilot. Officers hold down all the primary staff jobs in the unit (S1, 2, 3, 4, etc.)
Different Grades for different jobs.
I have been in many units where Warrants held staff positions. I know many Commissioned Officers that fly, go to Fort Rucker or any post that supports air and there are more Lt's and Capt's flying than Warrant Officers. That is a huge misconception that there are more warrant officer pilots in the army. I think it has something to do with the National Guard pushing warrant officer flight training heavy these days.
Army Warrant Officers are technical specialists, while Commissioned Officers are branch generalists. Up until 3 years ago, Warrant Officer was it's own branch, now those guys get to choose what branch they want to go in the Army. I always believed the whole Warrant Officer thing was a dated practice. Since they have all the rights and responsibilities as their Commissioned counterparts, I always thought just make them a 2LT.
I have served in aviation units. (Cav's got both air and ground together, ya know)
Look the the Table of Organization and Equipment for an aviation battalion. Every officer is slotted against a staff, command or leadership job. Every warrant is slotted against a technical job, or just listed as "pilot."
For example, Lieutenants lead aviation platoons. All of the other pilots in that platoon are warrants. Someday, that Lt will make captain and command an aviation company. Most of the warrants, on the other hand will make CW2 or CW3 - and stay right there in the platoon, being just a pilot.
(What's really funny is that Lt, when he arrives, has to be checked out by his warrant officer Check Pilot before he can fly PIC! Because it's pretty well recognized that the warrants are the flying experts - a heck of a lot more stick time with a lot fewer staff distractions)
The responsibilities are extremely different. That said, senior aviation warrants have occasionally be asked to fill in as platoon leaders when there weren't enough lieutenants, but as soon as an LT shows up, that warrant goes back to being just a pilot.
It's a bit different with some non-aviation warrants - you'll see them lead elements up to about platoon size in various weird technical fields (maintenance, intell, etc), but alway under the overall command of a commissioned officer.
I'm pretty clear on how Army aviation works. ;D which illustrates my point...
WO's fly first & take on tactical leadership roles second. Officers fly dramatically less & get pulled back to their primary duty of command/staff support. Okay, now watch this...
Your local unit (now re-designated a flight) is like a Ptn. That should be an NCO dominated structure. NCOs run every aspect of it & an NCO can command there based on experience, proven leadership, & being the best person for the job. OR, I can assign a competent & capable 1Lt down there to get operational experience & develop to be useful at the next level. That make sense?
Okay, ES-wise, the local Flight is caretaker of designated teams. NCOs will run the training for those teams & will be team leaders as well. This is the WO role we were talking about a minute ago. Those junior officers from Sq staff that live nearby will be down here to train with you & may be designated team leader for one of the teams assigned to that flight. Ultimately all the local flt GT people work for a GBD - Capt at Sq level anyway. You kind of see how that works, vis-a-vie the WO example?
Right then we come to Sq (this is what you'd think of as Company). Now, remember we pulled all but the most critical functions up off the local Flights. All they do is mission/CP. Now we put together a cluster of 3-4 local Flights (~150 people) & we call that a Sq, which is where we put most of the junior officers & where we do all that staff work to support local units - again much like a company. You can see the span of control here is more compressed in numbers & distances than our normal groups. That means the Sq staff can meet one Sat a month & spend the rest of the time supporting & training w/ local flights. See the nice part here too is since you're sharing resources on this Sq staff, you can have one Chaplain there that floats around doing ML & checking up on the teams. Just need one JA, one HSO... makes sense right?
Now, the Sq is also the basic operating unit. They draw GTs, aircrews, comm, from the assigned flights & staff from the Sq HQ staff, and together they have an organic combined arms team. Train small unit at Flight, bring it up to combined ops under a staff during quarterly Sq SaREx... makes sense right?
On the cadet end, they're running the same schedule so when they come together they're at the same place, and they have enough people to run things in a way that just doesn't work with 10 kids. They have an NCO administering the program at Flt, and a DCC at Sq that's in charge of running one standardized program at all the units.
You had some other issues I'll try to get back to later.
Quote from: Dragoon on January 18, 2007, 03:04:33 AM
So you're advocating position based rank? :D
I think you're going to find that some of our most senior members do both. They are senior staffers AND the guy who answers the ELT call at 2 a.m. In a typical week, they do both field grade and junior NCO duties. They, in many cases, keep the whole thing running. I'm not sure we want to squelch that just to look more Air Force-y.
As a group commander it was not unusual for me to be out at 'oh-dark-thirty' doing ramp checks, DFing, and doing all those other wonderful things associated with a successful UDF mission.
Too many cold, dark, rainy nights finally convinced me to finish IC training so I could stay home with a hot beverage and tell other people it was there turn to be cold, wet & miserable.
I still try to do a few 'midnight run missions' when they surface, because deep down I enjoyed it! It was such a nice change from haranguing people to get reports in and so forth.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 18, 2007, 05:49:09 AM
Negative ghost rider! The Wing king's job is the mission. He has squadron commanders and first sergeants to take care of the people.
Wing kings must maintain their proficiencies just like the the lowly Lt's.
This is the United States of America.
Constitutionally we have neither monarchy, royalty, nobility nor aristocracy.
There is no such thing as a "wing king".
Using the term, endearing as some of you seem to find it, simply continues to encourage arbitrary decision making, authoritarianism, and unwarranted arrogance on the part of corporate officers. whose duty is primarily fiduciary, that is, looking to the welfare of the corporation and its 'stockholders' (members) rather than their own advancement or aggrandizement.
Dnall's concept of centralizing administrative functions makes a lot of sense, regardless of whether or not we change nomenclature.
If we want to continue using 'squadron' for the local unit iand group for the supervision & support echelon, fine....let's just stop demanding that every local unit (whatever we call it) be staffed to run the D-Day landings!
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 18, 2007, 07:32:44 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 18, 2007, 05:49:09 AM
Negative ghost rider! The Wing king's job is the mission. He has squadron commanders and first sergeants to take care of the people.
Wing kings must maintain their proficiencies just like the the lowly Lt's.
This is the United States of America.
Constitutionally we have neither monarchy, royalty, nobility nor aristocracy.
There is no such thing as a "wing king".
Using the term, endearing as some of you seem to find it, simply continues to encourage arbitrary decision making, authoritarianism, and unwarranted arrogance on the part of corporate officers. whose duty is primarily fiduciary, that is, looking to the welfare of the corporation and its 'stockholders' (members) rather than their own advancement or aggrandizement.
Lighten up Francis. :)
"Wing King" is a term of endearment for the Wing Commander. There is very much such a thing as a wing king.
If you only comment on my post is that I used a non technical identifier for an official position in a unit table of allowance then I take it you do not disagree that the focus of the Wing Commander of a USAF AD unit is to focus on completing the mission.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 18, 2007, 07:38:41 PM
Dnall's concept of centralizing administrative functions makes a lot of sense, regardless of whether or not we change nomenclature.
If we want to continue using 'squadron' for the local unit iand group for the supervision & support echelon, fine....let's just stop demanding that every local unit (whatever we call it) be staffed to run the D-Day landings!
Basically yeah. I was originally calling them mini-Gps to get the concept across. The reaosn a Ibumped it is cause Flt really is a unit that requires outside support, where Sq shouldn't be, and we're still going to nee the Gp layer in there in a good number of wings to maintain a span of ctrol that makes any kind of sense. I don't even want to hear about chainging flags & all that junk though.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 18, 2007, 07:38:41 PM
Dnall's concept of centralizing administrative functions makes a lot of sense, regardless of whether or not we change nomenclature.
If we want to continue using 'squadron' for the local unit iand group for the supervision & support echelon, fine....let's just stop demanding that every local unit (whatever we call it) be staffed to run the D-Day landings!
It's a fine idea.
The rub is to find folks willing to volunteer to do all the centralized admin, instead of doing the fun work like flying and GT and cadet programs.
Remember the basic problem - you can make Lt Col just doing fun stuff - why do the hard stuff?
Heck, how many folks today are just dying to leave their squadrons and work at Wing, if only Wing would let them?
Cause you CAN'T make LtCol doing just the fun stuff, you can make SSgt-MSgt that way, but not LtCol. On the officer side you have to work lots harder & focus on playing the mission game up on the big IC staff. That in itself is going to be a motivator, the fast track to IC. It's also the fast track to command at all levels. I mean if there's 6000 officers of all grades, and you're getting selected & individually developed at each level, you lose for retention & people that top out by choice or not, the numbers at the top are plenty more than we need, but your chances after surviving that loga re pretty good ya know. There's a pay off, and they get sold a dif bill of goods than the enlisted troops.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 18, 2007, 08:02:49 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 18, 2007, 07:32:44 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 18, 2007, 05:49:09 AM
Negative ghost rider! The Wing king's job is the mission. He has squadron commanders and first sergeants to take care of the people.
Wing kings must maintain their proficiencies just like the the lowly Lt's.
This is the United States of America.
Constitutionally we have neither monarchy, royalty, nobility nor aristocracy.
There is no such thing as a "wing king".
Using the term, endearing as some of you seem to find it, simply continues to encourage arbitrary decision making, authoritarianism, and unwarranted arrogance on the part of corporate officers. whose duty is primarily fiduciary, that is, looking to the welfare of the corporation and its 'stockholders' (members) rather than their own advancement or aggrandizement.
Lighten up Francis. :)
"Wing King" is a term of endearment for the Wing Commander. There is very much such a thing as a wing king.
If you only comment on my post is that I used a non technical identifier for an official position in a unit table of allowance then I take it you do not disagree that the focus of the Wing Commander of a USAF AD unit is to focus on completing the mission.
My name is not Francis, and I presume you are not the drill sergeant from "Stripes"....
Quite possibly you know some wing commanders in the current gaggle that merit "terms of endearment"; sadly, I do not share your experience.....the quality of corporate officers has declined radically in the past five to ten years, as the litmus test became whether a particular long (in my view, too long) serving National staff member could tell you how to vote.
As to the issue at hand, both you and the individual supporting the opposing view have some merit in your arguments....the bottom line is that any commander at any level must have a dual focus -- member and mission -- and trying to determine which came first is a real "chicken or egg" proposition.
Zig Zag:
If it will make you feel better then, "Wing king" is a perjorative.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 19, 2007, 12:08:21 AM
Zig Zag:
If it will make you feel better then, "Wing king" is a perjorative.
You say it, but you don't mean it!
OK, I get your point, I've made my point....I'll leave it alone (well, for a few months, anyway!)
Quote from: DNall on January 18, 2007, 08:45:25 PM
Cause you CAN'T make LtCol doing just the fun stuff, you can make SSgt-MSgt that way, but not LtCol. On the officer side you have to work lots harder & focus on playing the mission game up on the big IC staff. That in itself is going to be a motivator, the fast track to IC.
Okay, lets look at what you're saying (everyone pay attention here)
Under this system proposal, if you don't work above squadron level, you will not get promoted through the officer ranks. No amount of training or going to class will suffice.
I'm all for this, but a lot of members aren't. They will claim that the long term squadron member who works hard and goes to the classes deserves to be promoted too.
Now, how do you handle the guy who as MADE Lt Col, but no longer wants to do the fun stuff? He just wants to fly, or teach cadets or whatever.
Do you demote him?
Do you make him hold a job at Wing, even though he's not the least bit interested in doing it anymore?
Do you just let him go back to the unit, keep his grade and work for the Master Sergeant?
Quote from: Dragoon on January 19, 2007, 01:27:31 PM
Quote from: DNall on January 18, 2007, 08:45:25 PM
Cause you CAN'T make LtCol doing just the fun stuff, you can make SSgt-MSgt that way, but not LtCol. On the officer side you have to work lots harder & focus on playing the mission game up on the big IC staff. That in itself is going to be a motivator, the fast track to IC.
Okay, lets look at what you're saying (everyone pay attention here)
Under this system proposal, if you don't work above squadron level, you will not get promoted through the officer ranks. No amount of training or going to class will suffice.
That's right. Understand the local unit you're talking about becomes almost all-enlisted. Officers start above the local level & rarely come down, certainly don't stay down there. The only case where there could be an officer in alocal unit is floating thru for a couple years at Sq CC or ES/CP training officer. They won't always get those jobs & they won't tay on after they're done. If you want to work at a local unit then you choose to be enlsited at the start. If you're fed up with being an officer & want to go back to a local unit then you can resign your appointment & take equiv enlisted grade. Officers start at at joint staff level we're calling a Sq & stay there thru the company grades. If they don't want to leave there, they can decline promotion. Once they make Maj they go to Gp or Wg staff as the command sees fit. Besides the rare junior major in a Sq CC job, they can't leave Gp/Wg. If they want to later in their career they can request demotion to some other grade. There's no reason to do that though. They can be assigned to Wg w/o a job & even in a reserve role if they see fit, & are free to visit & help whatever unit they want, but they cannot take postions there or interfere with the assigned chain of command.
QuoteI'm all for this, but a lot of members aren't. They will claim that the long term squadron member who works hard and goes to the classes deserves to be promoted too.
Now, how do you handle the guy who as MADE Lt Col, but no longer wants to do the fun stuff? He just wants to fly, or teach cadets or whatever.
Do you demote him? Do you make him hold a job at Wing, even though he's not the least bit interested in doing it anymore? Do you just let him go back to the unit, keep his grade and work for the Master Sergeant?
I wasn't planning on asking them. It's drastic change we have to work toward over time. A professional officer corps would support it. We have a program to produce a professional officer corps, and create the enlisted structure underneath by necessity. Somthing like this program would be down range of that, but I hope not too far downrange. rest is answered above.
Quote from: DNall on January 14, 2007, 08:54:40 AM
First is ACA. They are just a cadet program & not formally tied to any branch of service (but strong informal connections). The OCS they require is two weeks in-res hardcore trng, a year of intense self-study, & two more weeks at the end, at a cost of several thousand to the candidate. That's much more strenuous & time consuming than what I'm asking & they don't even have an ES mission or federal backing.
I know this is an old post....however, just for clarification, the training costs for ACA Officer Development Training (Officer Candidate School (OCS) or Officer Basic Course (OBC)) are:
OCS Phase I (9 Days) Enrolled ACA Officer.......................... $175
OCS Phase III (9 Days) Enrolled ACA Officer........................ $200
(Price includes commissioning insignia)OBC (9 Days) Enrolled ACA Officer..................................... $200
(Price includes commissioning insignia)Under no circumstances is ACA OCS
"...at the cost of several thousand to the candidate." Granted, uniforms and travel can be expensive if purchased off-the-rack; however, not likely to the point of spending "thousands." We also have www.clothingsales.acacadets.org to keep the costs as low as possible.
Completion of ACA's OCS program makes the OC eligible for the award of six college credits. Detailed information on our commissioning requirements can be found at http://www.acacadets.org/PDF/acainst1120-2B.pdf
Respectfully,
J. M. LAND, SR., CDR, USNCC
Chief of Staff www.militarycadets.org
American Cadet Alliance National Headquarters
"ADVENTURE BEGINS HERE!"
^that's $575, plus travel, plus uniforms, plus 27 days off work (plus transit time). That's a few grand, and nothing wrong with that. It costs several thousand in net lost income to be be a natioanl guard officer.
How come they can get away with looking almost exactly like the military and CAP members look look like clowns?
Cause they aren't formally affiliated with the military so don't have to ask permission, and aren't govt funded, so don't have to play nice for worry of having it taken away.
got it! I'm off to throw on my AF blues.....remove the nameplate and throw on metal general stars. I'm not affiliated with the AF, or CAP when I do that.....but I expect everyone to call me General. Will I go to jail if I start introducing myself to everyone as "general"? I hope not!
Quote from: DNall on May 12, 2007, 06:04:56 AM
^that's $575, plus travel, plus uniforms, plus 27 days off work (plus transit time). That's a few grand, and nothing wrong with that. It costs several thousand in net lost income to be be a natioanl guard officer.
Actually, not. For clarification...
OCS is one course of instruction, spread out over two summer Annual Training periods. Total $375, with commissioning package.
OBC is a different course of instruction for those who have been federally commissioned officers, or have extensive service in a Recognized Cadet Corps, and is one 9-day period only. Total $200, with commissioning package.
That's wierd, cause OCS is usually where you learn how to be a theoretical officer, and then OBC is the first course you take so you learn how to do your techinical job & be an officer in practical terms. But anyway...
I don't expect them to be any different in price than what CAP adds up to, it's the quality we're concerned with. Getting quality interviewed & select candidates in the front door, then thru quality training, that makes higher quality officer that are semi-on-par with NG level officers. And then keep up that advanced training as they move thru their career so they can stand side by side with NG/Res officers in a disaster zone & work interoperably within the ICS system.
Quote from: mikeylikey on May 12, 2007, 01:12:57 PM
got it! I'm off to throw on my AF blues.....remove the nameplate and throw on metal general stars. I'm not affiliated with the AF, or CAP when I do that.....but I expect everyone to call me General. Will I go to jail if I start introducing myself to everyone as "general"? I hope not!
Obviously wearing an indistinguishable uniform &/or claiming to be a military officer can be a crime. All it takes to meet the legal definition of distinguishable is a same color two-line nametag that says Civil Air Patrol under the last name. That's all most SDFs do. The AF is holding CAP to a standard higher than what the law requires. They are doing that because CAP folks are oin uniform on AF bases & they don't want their people thinking we are real officers with UCMJ authority. Therefor their standard is that a CAP uniform must be clearly distinguishable from 20ft away. That still doesn't mean it needs to be as silly as it is now.
Quote from: DNall on May 12, 2007, 06:16:07 PM
Therefor their standard is that a CAP uniform must be clearly distinguishable from 20ft away. That still doesn't mean it needs to be as silly as it is now.
A couple of AF AD (E5 and E4) just recently told us about an incident in which one of them, exiting a dining facility, encountered a group of CAP officers, saluted, and failed to receive a return salute (as an aside, unfortunately we have some members who feel CAP is "too military", and consequently treat real military personnel discourteously because they are uncomfortable with saluting, rank titles, the terms 'sir' and 'ma'am'.....I'm not entirely sure why they didn't join some other organization that had no military affiliation!)
Anyway, to return to the point, when asked why he bothered saluting a horde of CAP officers, the SSgt replied that "from 20 or 30 feet you can't tell them apart from USAF officers"....anecdotal, I realize, but if true, an indication that the current insignia distinctions don't serve their purpose.
QuoteAnyway, to return to the point, when asked why he bothered saluting a horde of CAP officers, the SSgt replied that "from 20 or 30 feet you can't tell them apart from USAF officers"....anecdotal, I realize, but if true, an indication that the current insignia distinctions don't serve their purpose.
No, its the fact that AF sees so little of CAP that they don't actually know what distinguishing marks are there to be seen. Most, even if they recognize that we're not AF still won't know who we are and will whip out a salute just in case.
The problem isn't our uniforms, its the fact that we're so separated from each other that neither knows how to act when they come in contact with each other.
And not knowing how to act is just as much an AF problem as a CAP problem. Its their responsibilty to train their people about what CAP is and what we do and what our uniforms look like just like it is CAP's responsibilty to do the same for for our members.
^That's highly unfortunate, we've worked to address that inour wing, but penetration is less than complete to be sure. You salute at 5 paces (10-15ft) not 20 or 30 feet. What you'll generally see is people giving you a wide pberth cause they don't understand what they're seeing. Honestly I think that's more of an education issue on their end, but we have plenty to do as well.
Quote from: DNall on May 13, 2007, 02:07:08 AM
^That's highly unfortunate, we've worked to address that inour wing, but penetration is less than complete to be sure. You salute at 5 paces (10-15ft) not 20 or 30 feet. What you'll generally see is people giving you a wide pberth cause they don't understand what they're seeing. Honestly I think that's more of an education issue on their end, but we have plenty to do as well.
It was the USAF gentleman who mentioned 20-30 feet....I guess that's 'target identification' range in terms of saluting
Frankly, it doesn't really bother me if the tiny percentage of AF members who actually come in contact with CAP accidently salute a CAP officer once in their careers. It doesn't hurt anybody and that half a calorie they burned lifting their arm will help keep them Fit To Fight. >:D
To some extent the more that the AF tries to dis-associate CAP members from the AF, the less interested I am in volunteering my time to support the AF.
^^ One way to alleviate all of that is to grant "Special Commissions" that place the CAP member in a reserve that is dedicated only to the CAP missions. That is what they do in Australia, Canada, the UK, and most other countries with a cadet program similar to CAP. I was sent the 50 some page booklet that the Army Cadets are presenting to everyone in hopes of growing their program. They list that as one possible route for their program. By the way, CAP is mentioned like 6 times as an example. I will link to the booklet as soon as I can.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 13, 2007, 02:00:51 AM
Anyway, to return to the point, when asked why he bothered saluting a horde of CAP officers, the SSgt replied that "from 20 or 30 feet you can't tell them apart from USAF officers"....
Even though I hate some of our uniform insignia, I have to address this. I've had Air Force enlisted salute me when in blues, and Marines salute me when in
BDU's.
I used to stop and explain that military weren't required to salute us (I don't anymore, so everyone can leave that alone). The Air Force personnel said that it was officer rank, and used the old rule of thumb: "When in doubt, whip it out." The Marines replied with: "No sir, we are required to salute all officer rank insignia, regardless of its commisioned status".
I think overall that it's not a case of being indistuigishable (my gray epaulets and nametag are disitinctive enough, I won't even expand on the BDU issue), it's a case of they see the little details that say "officer" and work from there.
Either way, I've always been taught that you return any and all salutes you receive, even if it's someone being a smart aleck. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. That's not something I just learned from the military, it's also based on a few stories that I heard from my father when he was in the military. It may be old custom, but it should be a continuing one.
Why does everyone have to make such a big deal over saluting? It is a courtesy and should be extended to the rank, not the organization. And if saluted, return the darn thing, don't try to explain something to someone, especially when you don't have a clue about what you are talking about. Having served, I can tell you that on some bases, there is a large contingent of foreign military. Some of the foreign military enlisted uniforms look like field grade uniforms. They get saluted by active duty all the time. It's not a crime, it happens, the foreigners return the salute and everyone goes on without a big deal. If you think you see an officer that outranks you, in any service, salute. If someone salutes you, return the salute. It's as simple as that. It's a courtesy, it's a sign of respect, and it's a sign of brotherhood. Quit embarrassing everyone because of your own feelings of inadequacy or ego. IMHO, but worth every pennies worth.
I agree with that. Although, it is fun to watch some enlisted/junior officer's faces as they try to figure out whether or not salute me in the bbdu. A simple pleasure, I admit, but fun none the less. If they salute, I return it, if they don't, I don't worry about it.
Quote from: capchiro on May 13, 2007, 03:30:18 PM
Why does everyone have to make such a big deal over saluting? It is a courtesy and should be extended to the rank, not the organization. And if saluted, return the darn thing, don't try to explain something to someone, especially when you don't have a clue about what you are talking about. Having served, I can tell you that on some bases, there is a large contingent of foreign military. Some of the foreign military enlisted uniforms look like field grade uniforms. They get saluted by active duty all the time. It's not a crime, it happens, the foreigners return the salute and everyone goes on without a big deal. If you think you see an officer that outranks you, in any service, salute. If someone salutes you, return the salute. It's as simple as that. It's a courtesy, it's a sign of respect, and it's a sign of brotherhood. Quit embarrassing everyone because of your own feelings of inadequacy or ego. IMHO, but worth every pennies worth.
I can tell you didn't read my entire post. I mentioned that
I don't do it anymore. One, due to some of the reasons mentioned on this board. Two, because it just took a lot of time. Three, it was more professional to return it, properly and proudly.
Currently, I'm still serving. Initially, it was a little awkard, because, as an enlisted man, I wasn't used to it. It's no longer an issue.
I was responding to DNall's comment about insignia recognition distance.
I agree that there is no need to make a big deal about saluting: extend the courtesy of saluting or responding when appropriate, and be done with it!
My concern was the CAP 'officers' who failed to return the USAF NCOs salute....the height of discourtesy, as far as I am concerned.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 13, 2007, 02:09:40 AM
It was the USAF gentleman who mentioned 20-30 feet....I guess that's 'target identification' range in terms of saluting
The outside range maybe, that's still about the point you can choose to go around & avoid the whole deal. I think the grade slides are highly idenitifiable from that kind of distance, where the white shirt w/ blue slides is not (with any kind of glare at all).
The whole thing about saluting... oibviously we need to educate & reinforce with our members better, but that's not the point. The big deal is folks int he military are made to feel uncomfortable when they don't understand what they are seeing, and that's what would be better avoided, again with education.
Did someone wake up an old thread about mandatory education to come in CAP as an officer (versus creating enlisted ranks for them) so that we could talk about saluting & uniform differences?
I am a police Officer. Please quote me the law that says it is illegal to buy a military uniform and dress up and pretend you are a military officer? Now, obviously if you went to a secure area and tried to pass yourself off as a General, thats a crime but just going downtown wearing a uniform with General stars is not a crime.
I have served in mulit national forces twice and I have neverf seen a U.S. soldier salute a foreign officer. Your basic E1-E4 doesnt even know foreign rank (heck, they dont even know Naval rank) So no thats not gonna happen. I know some foregin rank, but I dont salute them. i am not required nor bound to. I took oath to obey the officers appointed over me. And thats what I do. I greet and say good morning, afternoon, or evening. But no i do not salute them
Quote from: flyguy06 on May 13, 2007, 08:17:42 PM
I know some foregin rank, but I dont salute them. i am not required nor bound to.
I sure you can cite a source for that?
Once again, saluting is a courtesy and should be extended as such. Having been assigned to a base with lots of field grade foreign officers from many nations, I can vouch that US active duty personnel do salute foreign officers. What would you do if you were assigned to one of the United Nations endeavors and a German officer that outranked you was in command? Would you salute him or not?
In the last three minutes of retrospect, I must admit that although I have reported what I have seen on base, I am not sure if it was really proper regarding the saluting of foreign officers. That also brings into question the propriety of saluting a foreign officer when you are assigned on a United Nations mission. This issue is too important to base on hearsay or experience and needs some cite to the proper Air Force regulation. Anybody got the reg? Let's check it out and reach the definitive answer. Thanks,
Federal law
QuoteTITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 33 > § 702
§ 702. Uniform of armed forces and Public Health Service
Whoever, in any place within the jurisdiction of the United States or in the Canal Zone, without authority, wears the uniform or a distinctive part thereof or anything similar to a distinctive part of the uniform of any of the armed forces of the United States, Public Health Service or any auxiliary of such, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
Wow, does that mean that during deer season, everybody wearing camo or BDU's or Field jackets should be arrested??? Guy's like Kerry waering his field jacket and throwing his medals over the fence?? Fortunately not enforced, huh???
Quote from: capchiro on May 13, 2007, 09:28:02 PM
Wow, does that mean that during deer season, everybody wearing camo or BDU's or Field jackets should be arrested??? Guy's like Kerry waering his field jacket and throwing his medals over the fence?? Fortunately not enforced, huh???
Like anything, there is a practical time & place. Wearing a surplus BDU blouse while hunting is not the same thing as showing up at the base gate decked out as an officer & then trying to sign out a rack of M-4s.
You are required to render honors (salute) to superior officers of the US AND allied forces. You are very much required to salute NATO officers for instance. Not knowing the grade is not an excuse or defense.
Saluting is obviously a "courtesy" meant to express fealty. It is required, and failing to do so expresses that you are unwilling to follow orders issued by any officer appointed over you. Not returning a salute rendered implies you do not recognize the person initiating it as being good enough to follow you under any circumstances... I know this is exaggerating what's actually going on, but that's the technical & symbolic meaning of those actions, and that's why it's important.
Quote from: flyguy06 on May 13, 2007, 08:17:42 PM
I have served in mulit national forces twice and I have neverf seen a U.S. soldier salute a foreign officer. Your basic E1-E4 doesnt even know foreign rank (heck, they dont even know Naval rank) So no thats not gonna happen. I know some foregin rank, but I dont salute them. i am not required nor bound to. I took oath to obey the officers appointed over me. And thats what I do. I greet and say good morning, afternoon, or evening. But no i do not salute them
Well that's not a very good example. You point out that even active duty members are trained properly. Also as a leader you are setting a bad example and you are disobeying printed regulations where it says you will render honors to members of foreign friendly nations.
I too have served in multinational forces....and spend the last 19 years overseas. I have and I encourage my subordinates to learn the various ranks of our partners and to render honors when appropriate. You took an oath to obey the orders of the President and officers appointed over you.....one of those orders is to salute foreign officers.
Quote from: capchiro on May 13, 2007, 08:37:57 PM
In the last three minutes of retrospect, I must admit that although I have reported what I have seen on base, I am not sure if it was really proper regarding the saluting of foreign officers. That also brings into question the propriety of saluting a foreign officer when you are assigned on a United Nations mission. This issue is too important to base on hearsay or experience and needs some cite to the proper Air Force regulation. Anybody got the reg? Let's check it out and reach the definitive answer. Thanks,
Here you go sir
Quote from: AFMAN 36-2203 para 3.63.6. Exchange of Salutes. The salute is a courteous exchange of greetings, with the junior member always saluting first. When returning or rendering an individual salute, the head and eyes are turned toward the Colors or person saluted. When in ranks, the position of attention is maintained unless otherwise directed. Members of the Armed Forces in uniform exchange salutes under the following conditions:
3.6.1. Outdoors, salutes are exchanged upon recognition between officers and warrant officers and between officers or warrant officers and cadets or enlisted members of the Armed Forces. Saluting outdoors means salutes are exchanged when the persons involved are outside of a building. For example, if a person is on a porch, a covered sidewalk, a bus stop, a covered or open entryway, or a reviewing stand, the salute will be exchanged with a person on the sidewalk outside of the structure or with a person approaching or in the same structure. This applies both on and off military installations. The junior member should initiate the salute in time to allow the senior officer to return it. To prescribe an exact distance for all circumstances is not practical, but good judgment indicates when salutes should be exchanged. A superior carrying articles in both hands need not return the salute, but he or she should nod in return or verbally acknowledge the salute. If the junior member is carrying articles in both hands, verbal greetings should be exchanged. Also, use these procedures when greeting an officer of a friendly foreign nation.
Emphasis mine!
Quote from: DNall on May 13, 2007, 09:45:56 PM
Like anything, there is a practical time & place. Wearing a surplus BDU blouse while hunting is not the same thing as showing up at the base gate decked out as an officer & then trying to sign out a rack of M-4s.
Wow......reminds me of something I was involved with years ago. As a Cadet I was at Encampment in PAWG......where an AF Major was the training Officer. I had worked with this Major the previous three years. He and I emailed, and he was my mentor. He and a few CAP Officers would always go to Andrews AFB, pick up M16's various vehicles, food and training aids. Well....half way through Encampment the FBI shows up, and arrests this AF Major. A few weeks later we all read in the Newspaper that this AF Officer we thought was an AF Officer was in fact......NOT AN AIR FORCE OFFICER. He had impersonated an AF Officer for at least 14 years. He "promoted" himself, and took AF correspondence courses (remember that, it comes back later). It turned out this guy was in AFROTC, but disenrolled because of some stuff he did while in College. He decided to make fake MILID's, and "join" the AF Reserve. He actually joined a Reserve unit in Maryland......and at one time was assigned to the SQD that took care of AF ONE.
When he went to court......he pleaded guilty to MANY charges! He was given leniency (this was before 9/11 REMEMBER), because the court said he did everything that was required of an Officer to promote etc. (Remember the correspondence courses from above). He was sentenced to six months in Federal Prison and I do believe psychological help.
Needless to say.....The Air Force was embarrassed, as was the Army posts he drew the equipment and vehicles and weapons from. There was a HUGE internal investigation in the PA National Guard because of this (he signed out lots of ammo from them.....and huge amounts were not accounted for afterwards). PAWG has had to work very hard to get the PA National Guard to trust them. It is still an issue. Even more interesting is this guy was from Maryland......and Maryland Wing should have taken some of the shame, but they didn't.
Quote from: shorning on May 13, 2007, 08:20:03 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on May 13, 2007, 08:17:42 PM
I know some foregin rank, but I dont salute them. i am not required nor bound to.
I sure you can cite a source for that?
I sure can. My Commanding Officer.
I really dont like getting into discussions like this. Usually, I just sit back and read all the ill informed opinions but I have to say this. And I am not boasting either, but someone called my integrity into question and that cannot stand.
I have been in the U.S. Army for 18 years. Sven of those years have been as an officer. I am a "current" member of the Army. So I dont tell old war stories about Vietnam.
I am telling you all that it is not required to salute foreign officers. Most soldiers do not know officer ank so how they be expected to salute. I have been to two deployments overseas as part of a multinational force. Trust me on this one. I cant prove it, I just know what I experienced. Yes, youpay respect to all foregin allied military people, but saluting is not required. Again, you cant salute if you dont know the rank. Private Smith, the supply clerk doenst know an Italian General from a Croatian Sergeant. You guys have no idea about soldiers today. You may have been in the military 30 years ago and thats cool. But 30 years ago, you didnt wear ACU's or have M4A2's either. Things change.
I do not set a bad example for my soldiers. I pride myself on being a role model. When we got into country this last time in Iraq, we recived an in country brief from CFLCC(dont ask me what that satnds for,..Coalition Forces something) In this breifing we were told the SOP's of what we were and what we were not supposed to do. I remember distincly this issue. When passing a foreign alied officer of senior rank, you render thre greeting of the day and thats it. Again for the third time. Soldiers get a book on foregin rank, but 90% of them dont read it. They have more pressingissues like getting ready to perform their jobs.
You can continue this discussion but I am telling you what I know from what I see. Whewwwwww
Regulations say you do have to salute allied officers. That's the facts on paper regardless of commanding officers knowing the rules or not. The practical fact is no one knows the grade systems of other countries unless you're continuously stationed with them on a joint base. Most of the MNF time any of us ever see is in the field where there is almost no saluting. Yu still say sir to an Austrailian Col just like it was an American officer, and if placed in his ocmmand you follow orders.
Im going to respond to the origional thread.....
Where do people come up with this stuff. Mandated college for Senior Members?? Give me a break. Let me know when CAP offers tuition assistance.....
I have 8 years in the military, 10 years as a law enforcement officer, a Private pilot rating in helicopters, gliders, and a Commercial-Instrument in airplanes. I managed to do it all with 40 college units. Im not seeing how an AA degree would change anything about me, except add more debt.
What would be the incentive? I dont think the idea of being in CAP is going to motivate me to sacrafice what little personal time I have just for the honor of PAYING to be in CAP.
Quote from: Flying Pig on May 14, 2007, 05:34:56 AM
Im going to respond to the origional thread.....
Where do people come up with this stuff. Mandated college for Senior Members?? Give me a break. Let me know when CAP offers tuition assistance.....
I have 8 years in the military, 10 years as a law enforcement officer, a Private pilot rating in helicopters, gliders, and a Commercial-Instrument in airplanes. I managed to do it all with 40 college units. Im not seeing how an AA degree would change anything about me, except add more debt.
What would be the incentive? I dont think the idea of being in CAP is going to motivate me to sacrafice what little personal time I have just for the honor of PAYING to be in CAP.
If you didn't see the discussion going on around the original thread at the time, then it may be confusing.
It involved restructuring CAP. Most of the work would be lifted off local units so they could focus ONLY on the missions (ES, CP, AE), with a few units gouped together using shared mgmt/staff. Members would come in as enlisted grades, they would be the ones in the field getting the job done. Then there would be an officer training program to move into mgmt. The officers would run the missions as IC staff, and that includes being fully capable of standing in for guard/res l& state/fed civilian emergency mgmt officials as part of massive joint ICS response. The officers would also be doing all the staff work & mgmt in support of local units. They would be something like 10-20% of adult membership on the outside.
The thread discussed the issue that IF CAP were to be restructured along lines simliar to that, THEN what should the min application requirements for officer tainign be, and specifically this thread discussed the validity of education & what level is sufficient to meet the standard. It's anticipated that said officer training would be very challenging acadmicially & challenging/stressful in general, and that of those competitively selected possiblly as much as 30% would fail the training. The education matched the requirement to enter NG OCS & was generally consdered as a gatekeeper of sorts to select (in combination with many other fctors) candidates most likely to be able to pass the training, and therefor not waste our or their time.
Quote from: flyguy06 on May 14, 2007, 03:57:34 AM
Quote from: shorning on May 13, 2007, 08:20:03 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on May 13, 2007, 08:17:42 PM
I know some foregin rank, but I dont salute them. i am not required nor bound to.
I sure you can cite a source for that?
I sure can. My Commanding Officer.
Well, it's good that you have faith in your CO, but they aren't exactly a source. I'll ask another way. Can you provide verifiable documentation?
Quote from: flyguy06 on May 14, 2007, 04:09:52 AM
I am telling you all that it is not required to salute foreign officers.
And you're wrong. At least one source has shown otherwise.
Quote from: flyguy06 on May 14, 2007, 04:09:52 AM
...we recived an in country brief from CFLCC(dont ask me what that satnds for,..Coalition Forces something)...
You've been in the Army 18 years, seven of which as an officer, and you don't know what CFLCC stands for? Amazing...
Nall...
Thanks for clarifying. Must have been before my time. I mean this time. ;D
As many have said, the salute is a courtesy, or custom. And I'd personally err on the side of conservatism. Better to salute when one doesn't have to than not to have when one should have.
Here, too, we have a large contingent of foreign officers. I'll assure you that they do get saluted, and do render salutes. If you've not been in a diverse uniform environment, you wouldn't believe the amount of 'bling' that some services' NCOs wear. Periodically, there's been a graphic passed around with pictures of all the NATO country grades. But, between distributions, and people PCSing in/out, when they're not sure, they salute, as do I. If I get saluted, I return it. If I see what I suspect is offerer grade, I salute it. As someone said, it's calories off the Fit-for-Life, if nuthin' else. It's respect for the uniform, the grade, the commitment. I've made mine, they've made theirs.. There's soooo much more important stuff to get bent over anyway...
From a CoastAuxie document:
"The hand salute is a long-established form of greeting and recognition exchanged between persons in the armed services. Saluting between Auxiliarists is not usually the custom. On occasions, when in uniform and covered, courtesy and custom indicate that a salute is in order; for example, when returning a salute rendered by a member of the Armed Forces. It is also customary to exchange greetings such as "good morning," "good afternoon," "good evening," etc. along with the salute. Obviously, if the other person is a senior officer the salute should be originated by you and the greeting should be followed by "sir or ma'am." The exchange of greetings should also be accompanied by a smile or a cheerful expression."
V/R,
When I was in the Marines, I spent a fair amount of time with the British Royal Marines when they would come to Lejuene, and also the Australians.
I was walking through the parking lot of an Australian Air Force Exchange and saluted an older looking gentleman with a bunch of ribbons and other sparkly stuff. I saluted, he returned the salute and we continued on. Come to find out later, he was a Senior NCO. You can never go wrong with saluting. It didn't bother me, and he saw I was attempting to show him respect in HIS country. When in doubt, whip it out.
In another instance, I was in the field and we came across a squad of Royal Marines training. I was the squad leader. It was clear that I was the unit leader of my squad, so the Bristish Marine saluted me and called me "Sir" obviously in an attempt to error on the side of caution. I introduced myself as Sergeant Steht, and he was a Corporal. Again, we laughed about it, swaped MRE's and moved on.
In Korea, we were told if your not sure....salute, because the ROK Marine officers got P O'd if you didnt salute them.
As far as CAP officers being saluted by military enlisted. In my case, as with other Seniors, I have military ribbons as well. That throws off some people when they see me in uniform, especially now that we don't wear wing patches. At any rate.... just return the salute and move on.
Edited because I can't spell today.....
Quote from: Flying Pig on May 14, 2007, 07:50:35 PM
Nall...
Thanks for clarifying. Must have been before my time. I mean this time. ;D
Sure, I thought that original discussion was quite good in fact. A bit of cart well out in front of the horse, but still quite enlightening.
Quote from: Flying Pig on May 14, 2007, 08:36:35 PMIn Korea, we were told if your not sure....salute, because the ROK Marine officers got P O'd if you didnt salute them.
I remember when I was in Korea at MEC-Pohang, the ROK Marines would always salute us when we were driving through their base to get to the Port facility. I was a young Marine, maybe in the fleet for like 2 months, talk about akward.
WIWAC, many moons ago, I was in Okinawa with the squadron there. We were posted outside of the BX passing out those lil poppies. A Navy Senior Chief walked up and I couldn't tell if he was an officer or not. So I saluted. The Senior Chief, properly returned my salute and then stopped to explain to me the how to tell the difference between an Officer and a Chief in Khakis.
Fixed quote - MIKE
Pohang!!! YEEES! Was that little skinny guy who called himself "Coooooool Breeze" still running that little PX?