Long Term Decline

[BrandonKea]

(Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about people who are active and then life gets in the way for a while, I'm talking about members with CAPID's that start with 1XXXXX and 2XXXXX, who never made it past SM and haven't been to a meeting in 10 years.  Makes no sense to me.)

I'm one of those 29*** CAPID's for which I was inactive for about 2 years. I had a job that the hours and demands stopped me from being useful. In the 2 years, I wasn't really "in the loop" about anything that went on, but the squadron knew why I was gone. Now, I'm back and plan on never leaving again.

On the other hand, there are SM's who joined 3 or 4 years ago, who I still have NO idea who they are. I think they maintain their membership just to say they have it.

[Eclipse]

I'm one of those 29*** CAPID's for which I was inactive for about 2 years. I had a job that the hours and demands stopped me from being useful. In the 2 years, I wasn't really "in the loop" about anything that went on, but the squadron knew why I was gone. Now, I'm back and plan on never leaving again.

What real purpose was served by having you remain a "real" member for either side?

You had little or no grade to maintain, your quals would be expired when you came back, and anything else you did could be restored upon return, yet someone still had to maintain a jacket for you, make excuses for anything compliance related you weren't completing, and at higher HQ's you counted as a "tick" in terms of overall numbers.

And that conversation goes two ways -

Good - "Look how many people we have!"

Bad - "How can we have this many people and not be able to accomplish our missions?"

[BrandonKea]

I'm one of those 29*** CAPID's for which I was inactive for about 2 years. I had a job that the hours and demands stopped me from being useful. In the 2 years, I wasn't really "in the loop" about anything that went on, but the squadron knew why I was gone. Now, I'm back and plan on never leaving again.

What real purpose was served by having you remain a "real" member for either side?

You had little or no grade to maintain, your quals would be expired when you came back, and anything else you did could be restored upon return, yet someone still had to maintain a jacket for you, make excuses for anything compliance related you weren't completing, and at higher HQ's you counted as a "tick" in terms of overall numbers.

And that conversation goes two ways -

Good - "Look how many people we have!"

Bad - "How can we have this many people and not be able to accomplish our missions?"

Aside from me being on the roster, the purpose of me staying on was my job continued to promise me the ability to work CAP back into my schedule. The problem occurred when layoffs occurred, increasing my workload, and then realignment occurred, forcing me to work a shift that wasn't CAP-friendly.

Aside from that, my quals were maintained, I'm still a GTM-3, and I'm re-familliarizing myself with what's changed in 2 years. I had SLS done, Yeager done, OPSEC done, two tech ratings done, so there was nobody making excuses for why I wasn't doing anything as far as that goes. My jacket sat, where it's been sitting for 9 years, and nobody worried much about it. I paid my dues, hoping I could eventually return, and I did.

[Eclipse]

Aside from that, my quals were maintained, I'm still a GTM-3, and I'm re-familliarizing myself with what's changed in 2 years. I had SLS done, Yeager done, OPSEC done, two tech ratings done, so there was nobody making excuses for why I wasn't doing anything as far as that goes. My jacket sat, where it's been sitting for 9 years, and nobody worried much about it. I paid my dues, hoping I could eventually return, and I did.

Few will be giving CC's grief about Yeager and SLS, however if you were still doing things like OPSEC, then you're not in the club I'm referring to.

There's also the issue of once-a-year members who have some specific activity that is primarily self-serving (i.e. "fun"), and they maintain their membership just for that, ignoring everything else the rest of the year to the headache of their CC's.

[BrandonKea]

Aside from that, my quals were maintained, I'm still a GTM-3, and I'm re-familliarizing myself with what's changed in 2 years. I had SLS done, Yeager done, OPSEC done, two tech ratings done, so there was nobody making excuses for why I wasn't doing anything as far as that goes. My jacket sat, where it's been sitting for 9 years, and nobody worried much about it. I paid my dues, hoping I could eventually return, and I did.

Few will be giving CC's grief about Yeager and SLS, however if you were still doing things like OPSEC, then you're not in the club I'm referring to.

There's also the issue of once-a-year members who have some specific activity that is primarily self-serving (i.e. "fun"), and they maintain their membership just for that, ignoring everything else the rest of the year to the headache of their CC's.

I think we have 1 senior in our squadron who doesn't have CPPT. It was a cadet who turned 21 and hasn't been active for awhile, but isn't coming back. Our commander still hates that we hover at 98% for that. All new SM's in our unit are encouraged to complete the Yeager ASAP, which I think is great, as it's a good intro into AE for new members.

I might not have been "active," but I was up to date where I needed to be.

[Eclipse]

I think we have 1 senior in our squadron who doesn't have CPPT. It was a cadet who turned 21 and hasn't been active for awhile, but isn't coming back. Our commander still hates that we hover at 98% for that.

Easily fixed with a couple of clicks.  I have no idea why CC's are reluctant to do that, especially when they know they aren't coming back and are causing issues with compliance mandates.

[MIKE]

Topic?

[PlaneFlyr]

What was earth shattering was that cadets 16yrs and older dropped out of the program on a pretty consistent basis.  When polled they quoted, almost universally,  "they would have renewed if they had been reminded".  It appears that when they turned 16 they got jobs or had other high school activities or went away to college, away from their unit, that conflicted with their attending regular squadron meetings.  The local squadron did not keep in contact with them, reminding them about meetings or such, and even didn't remind them that they needed to renew.  Cadet who did stay in, who also had the same problems attending meetings as those that dropped stated they stayed in because the squadron commander or DCC called or kept in contact with them and reminded them they needed to renew.

Yes there were instances where some commanders terminated the cadet for not attending meetings.............pretty stupid IMO in these circumstances.  These are units who, by looking at the data, are on their way to extinction.  Their numbers were on a steady decline.  They were also units only focused on one part of the program.

A simple phone call or email kept cadets in the program.  I wrote up a 5 page report to the CC and command staff on this, with the numbers and graphs, it went no where.

Good point.  I've seen some units in mild decline turn it around by instituting a call-down list, and using it regularly.  Each person only has to call a couple below them on the list, so it's not a hardship for any of them.  And the reminder of upcoming events kept people showing up (at least better than before).

As for terminating members for lack of attendence... I'm not a big fan.  I know the regs allow it, but there are often better ways.  At the very least, the commander should call the person and find out why they haven't been around first.  If they're just busy with school/work/etc they'll appreciate CAP's patience with them.  If they aren't interested anymore, they can just roll off the membership list naturally.  Only if someone is a relatively bad apple to begin with would I consider it.  (yes... I've done all this for various members in the past)

[Rotorhead]

CAP NHQ has alienated the General Aviation community in many ways. CAP discourages Member owned aircraft participation in the selfish interest of having the Uncle Sam pay for a fleet of 500 Aircraft. So because we have 500 planes we lost the participation of thousands of pilots with their Airplanes.

What's the problem here?

No one is trying to keep you from flying your own airplane on your own time.

How does having to fly CAP aircraft on CAP missions alienate or keep someone who owns an airplane from participating?

If their attitude is, "I fly my own airplane or forget it," then maybe that's not the kind of person we need in the first place.

[Eclipse]

CAP NHQ has alienated the General Aviation community in many ways. CAP discourages Member owned aircraft participation in the selfish interest of having the Uncle Sam pay for a fleet of 500 Aircraft. So because we have 500 planes we lost the participation of thousands of pilots with their Airplanes.

"Alienated the GA community?  How, by committing hundreds of volunteer hours and thousands of volunteer dollars to protecting them?

By spending millions each year providing new and nearly new aircraft that can be flown by members
in support of the above for 1/2 what the average rentals charge, or better for "free" when you follow the program?

Most of the pilots I know of who think we've "alienated" the GA community are GOB's who think anything beyond their PPL and a glance at the airplane is "killing the organization with too many rules..."

And as an aircrew guy, completely dependent on the maintenance and attention to detail of the owner of the airplane, I'd much rather the Yugo with the door stapled to the roof is maintained with the "overly-conservative" attitude of the USAF and CAP, then depending on someone's personal risk tolerance.

80+% of the planes in my wing were acquired or zeroed within my 10-years as a member, most are a lot newer.  When I get into one of CAP's planes, I am reasonably certain its had all the required maintenance, and was repaired some place that has the name on their door.

I would not be excited to fly in the crates of a lot of our esteemed pilots who think its too much effort to wear a uniform properly, let alone maintain their aircraft.

And everyone knows that in an Armageddon scenario there is plenty of allowance for use of member-owned aircraft.

[Capt Rivera]

I wrote up a 5 page report to the CC and command staff on this, with the numbers and graphs, it went no where.

Do you still have the report? Can you post it? - Thanks