I don't know if this belongs in the History section or here, but I had a question regarding the older grades for SMs in CAP.
On Maj. Browning's website, he shows a laundry list of enlisted grades for Senior Members of CAP. What did NCO members do that officer members did not, and vice versa? Also, was there a use for the Warrant Officer grades aside from placeholders until members turned 21, or was there some more to it similar to a WO program in the Armed Forces?
Thanks!
I was a SM Warrant. It was nothing more than a place to park until I was 21. Think F/O today.
I have an olde 101 card with WO on it, and I was over 21 at the time. This was dated in the early '70s, and I was in my early 20s.
It depended on the size of the unit.
Back in the 60s and 70s, the senior memember enlisted guys in the PA Wing supervised cadets or served under officers in various duty positions. There were lots of enlisted types then.
When I coverted from cadet to senior member in 71, my unit was small enough that I became an instant admin and personnel officer in the grade of technical sergeant. It was the duty position that dictated my authority and not my rank.
That PA unit also previously had a senior master sergeant who served as the deputy commander for cadets.
When I transferred to the Indiania Wing in 72, while attending college, the CAP had moved away from enlisted ranks and I was appointed a warrant officer. I was pretty much on my own because I was in a communications specality without radios so I worked with cadets and learned public affairs.
When I turned 21, I had a third class radio telephone license with an element 9 endorsement, so I was appointed a 2Lt. and the rest is history.
Quote from: PA Guy on March 23, 2010, 06:58:11 AM
I was a SM Warrant. It was nothing more than a place to park until I was 21. Think F/O today.
We had plenty of warrants who were over 21. But, it you had your Mitchel+, you were a warrant until 21.
Would it be a good - and doable - idea to bring some of the elements of this system back; i.e., warrant positions for those who don't aspire to command in their career PD?
Quote from: CyBorg on March 23, 2010, 04:43:24 PM
Would it be a good - and doable - idea to bring some of the elements of this system back; i.e., warrant positions for those who don't aspire to command in their career PD?
What is your position on this?
Quote from: CyBorg on March 23, 2010, 04:43:24 PM
Would it be a good - and doable - idea to bring some of the elements of this system back; i.e., warrant positions for those who don't aspire to command in their career PD?
I suggest something like that. The gist of the responce was "no". We like our rank.
Completely understandable.
Quote from: Short Field on March 23, 2010, 06:11:24 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on March 23, 2010, 04:43:24 PM
Would it be a good - and doable - idea to bring some of the elements of this system back; i.e., warrant positions for those who don't aspire to command in their career PD?
What is your position on this?
I personally would have no problem trading in my railroad tracks for CWO3 bars and squares. But I only speak for myself.
Quote from: Fuzzy on March 23, 2010, 06:17:55 PM
I suggest something like that. The gist of the responce was "no". We like our rank.
Completely understandable.
Perhaps.
But warrant grades are still rank, as are the Flight Officer grades we currently have.
The only slot we have right now that isn't is the "SMWOG."
Well.....just to throw some gas onto this fire.
There is the argument that we could solve a lot of problems if we just did away with the USAF ranks all together.
Everyone would be a Flight Officer....based on your PD level.
SMWOG grad would be Flight Officer Candidate -gray epaulet no stripe.
Level I-FO1
Level II-FO2
Level III-FO3
Level IV-FO 4 (new rankslide with 4 stripes)
Level V-FO5 (New rankslide with 5 stripes)
But as someone said....we like our ranks.
How about Officer grade is temporary based on position. Flight officer grade is perminate based on Professional development and a person would revert back to it once you step down from your leadership position.
That way Officer Grade would clearly represent leadership. Flight Officers like Warrent officers in the army would be technical experts in their fields.
Guys,
Thank you for the history lesson. :)
Fuzzy's proposal sounds a bit like the Coast Guard Auxiliary way, except they don't have ranks, period, except at the Commodore level.
I wouldn't say no to Lordmonar's proposal.
Both have merit. There's nothing wrong with being a Flight Officer. And Flight Officer Candidate sounds a lot better than SMWOG.
However, I would modify Lordmonar's a bit just in the rank slides. Since the USAF has nothing like that, they could be blue.
So we call them "Flight Officers" even though the majority will never fly?
SMWOG is a temporary status for most new guys - six months and it is history. I don't believe very many senior members have be permanently scarred by being a SMWOG. I don't worry about the few SMWOGs who have not been promoted for several years.
Quote from: Fuzzy on March 23, 2010, 07:13:54 PM
How about Officer grade is temporary based on position. Flight officer grade is perminate based on Professional development and a person would revert back to it once you step down from your leadership position.
That way Officer Grade would clearly represent leadership. Flight Officers like Warrent officers in the army would be technical experts in their fields.
This is exactly my thought and what I drafted up in the following diagram: http://captalk.net/index.php?action=mgallery;sa=item;id=150 (http://captalk.net/index.php?action=mgallery;sa=item;id=150)
Of course the diagram is just a very preliminary and loose draft solution to visualize what the idea looks like in concept.
Whether you called them Warrant Officers or Flight Officer, since the AF doesn't use the Warrant grade insignia any longer, we could adopt it fairly easily I think and stay within the AF tradition.
The main purpose would be to give members rank that equates to their actual duties and professional development and give more meaning to the regular officer ranks.
Quote from: CyBorg on March 23, 2010, 07:21:47 PM
However, I would modify Lordmonar's a bit just in the rank slides. Since the USAF has nothing like that, they could be blue.
Baby step Elie....baby steps. :D
As for the title....Flight Officers can be changed to simply CAP Officers or Warrent Officer or Auxillary Officer.
And SMWOG is just a mouthful....AOC, AO1, AO2 just scans better. :)
I think we're placing too much emphasis on the label SMWOG.
It's nothing more than a status, describing those members who are neither cadets, nor officers, nor NCOs. In terms of something to enter into a box labeled Grade, you use SM. That's what pops up in the list on many form templates.
What's the big deal? You have two related, but different situations. Each term fits its own situation.
YMMV.
Quote from: Short Field on March 23, 2010, 09:10:23 PM
So we call them "Flight Officers" even though the majority will never fly?
SMWOG is a temporary status for most new guys - six months and it is history. I don't believe very many senior members have be permanently scarred by being a SMWOG. I don't worry about the few SMWOGs who have not been promoted for several years.
Splitting hairs; warrant officer, flight officer, whichever it is; the only difference is one is Air Force-based, another is Army/Navy.
And to look at things in CAP terms for a second...SMWOG + not meeting promotion requirements in 6 months = HUGE problem in my book. Look at the criteria! They're almost NECESSARY to do ANY job in CAP and not have a constant babysitter. And to be blunt, if you'll excuse my french...if you're a SMWOG who's been in that capacity for a couple YEARS...what the HELL are you doing??? Sparing the few circumstances in which somebody wouldn't be attached to a squadron or is an inactive member, what could POSSIBLY cause that (That's an open question, not a rhetorical one; if somebody has an answer, I'd REALLY like to know this one)???
Well, from one perspective, if you're in the program, you have to do CPPT and OPSEC to be allowed to do anything, and the foundations course is fairly simple. Unless you're doing something to warrant not being promoted after the first six months, you're almost assured to get your butterbars. After that, it's up to you to do your PD. If you don't, you can be a life long butterbar. I've known life long captains. My grandfather was a long time major, probably close to twenty years or so.
Rank is subjective, and as important as you want it, I guess.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 23, 2010, 06:50:53 PM
Well.....just to throw some gas onto this fire.
There is the argument that we could solve a lot of problems if we just did away with the USAF ranks all together.
Everyone would be a Flight Officer....based on your PD level.
SMWOG grad would be Flight Officer Candidate -gray epaulet no stripe.
Level I-FO1
Level II-FO2
Level III-FO3
Level IV-FO 4 (new rankslide with 4 stripes)
Level V-FO5 (New rankslide with 5 stripes)
But as someone said....we like our ranks.
I liked being a warrant officer.
Your problem, however, is that any change such as this has to be approved by the Air Force and the Air Force did away with warrant officers back in the 1970s. That's why there are flight officers....and regarding another earlier post, I didn't have a Mitchell Award when I was appointed a warrant officer. It was, however, a transititional rank just like flight officer is now, because I wasn't 21.
Quote from: Dracosbane on March 24, 2010, 12:14:48 AM
If you don't, you can be a life long butterbar.
I've known some long-term, if not lifelong, second looies.
The
flying club senior squadron I once belonged to had quite a few. They were all pilots that were only interested in the flying side of CAP and didn't care about PD.
You know what? We should do away with airplanes as well. It makes so much sense...after all, during the Civil War where were no aircraft (regards to Robur) and the Union still prospered. We could instantally drop our airplane related safety mishaps to zero.
...or...
How about aircraft status that is temporary based on position. When an aircraft is in the air it is an airplane and a an aircraft is on the ground it would revert back to being called a van.
That way the number of vans would clearly represent an increase. Aircraft are vans when it is on the ground.
I personally would have no problem trading in all CAP Aircraft for a transformer (I believe the one that does from a ground vehicle to an airplane was called Blitzwing). But I only speak for myself.
Better yet...
Well.....just to throw some boogers onto the oatmeal.
There is the argument that we could solve a lot of problems if we just did away with machines altogether.
Everyone would be an aircraft....based on your altitude.
Standing on a step ladder would be Aircraft Candidate -no roundel.
Level I-scaffold
Level II-belfrey
Level III-catapult
Level IV-trebuchet (new weight with 4 rocks)
Level V-large slingshot (New sling with 5 rubberbands)
MORAL OF THE STORY--- we already talked about this in another thread but with different words.
But as someone said....we like our rants.
This post is meant to be obsurd and a half-hearted satire...the other half is SERIOUS!!!
Quote from: RLM10_2_06 on March 23, 2010, 10:44:30 PM
And to look at things in CAP terms for a second...SMWOG + not meeting promotion requirements in 6 months = HUGE problem in my book.
Quick check of my unit showed about 10% of the adult members were SMWOG with over 12 months in CAP - one had over 10 years. That did not include the Cadet Sponsor Members.
Looking at things in CAP terms - they keep paying their dues so leave them alone. If they cease to pay squadron dues, they get transferred to 000. Some people join and pay dues just to support the program. Others are actually Cadet Sponsor Members but prefer full membership status. I know one person who pays her dues each year just to honor her Dad's service in CAP before he died.
Granted there is not a lot required to get promoted to 2Lt - but if they are not actively involved in the squadron and holding down a squadron job, they don't get promoted. So we just keep cashing their checks.....
OK, before this thread goes fully down the drain, let me remind every one that grade has little bearing on duty assignment; except for NB members and a (very few) other positions in CAP. I mean, we have a member of the BoG who is a SMWOG. These discussions have been made in many other threads. I seriously doubt there will be any real changes made in the next 100000 years but, hey, ya never know.... >:D
Quote from: FW on March 24, 2010, 11:09:30 AM
I mean, we have a member of the BoG who is a SMWOG.
Yes, but if it's the one I'm thinking of, he
is also Lieutenant General, USAF (Retired)!
^So?? :D We're discussing the relationship between CAP grade and duty position.
The plain fact is; except for some special instance, there is none. Hence we see SMWOG in many duty positions. Heck, I was a squadron cadet programs officer for about 2 years as a SMWOG. Didn't matter to anyone. And, Gen Searock nor, any one else, cares about being a SMWOG either; while he performs his duties as a Wing Logistics Officer or member of the BoG.
Gee, I remember having this discussion about a year ago. Too bad I'm too lazy to look it up... ;D :P
I guess the only thing I would like changed is SMWOG, it sounds like a disease. Can't we do something like officer trainee or airman or something?
Quote from: SarDragon on March 23, 2010, 10:31:52 PM
I think we're placing too much emphasis on the label SMWOG.
It's nothing more than a status, describing those members who are neither cadets, nor officers, nor NCOs.
In terms of something to enter into a box labeled Grade, you use SM. That's what pops up in the list on many form templates.
What's the big deal? You have two related, but different situations. Each term fits its own situation.
YMMV.
I can't express it any more simply than that.
We could call them "General" and let them wear four star rank insignia. I am sure that would make them feel better than being called a SMWOG. However, that would probably also kill any further professional development and desire for promotion to 2 Lt from a lot of them.
I dunno about you guys, but the only place I've ever been referred to as an "SMWOG" was on CAP Talk. Everywhere else I'm just "Senior Member" or "Mister" or "Sir" :angel:
Would you prefer FNG, or Cherry instead? ;D
Heh... Maggot and scum come to mind as well... As well as a host of comments from R. Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket. About the only thing that is appropriate is "Private Cowboy." :angel:
Quote from: Marshalus on March 25, 2010, 01:15:19 AM
I dunno about you guys, but the only place I've ever been referred to as an "SMWOG" was on CAP Talk. Everywhere else I'm just "Senior Member" or "Mister" or "Sir" :angel:
Ditto
Quote from: Marshalus on March 25, 2010, 01:15:19 AM
I dunno about you guys, but the only place I've ever been referred to as an "SMWOG" was on CAP Talk. Everywhere else I'm just "Senior Member" or "Mister" or "Sir" :angel:
I like "Mr" or "Miss/Ms" better than "Senior Member."
Still trying for that warrant officer designation, huh?? Only joking..
Quote from: CyBorg on March 25, 2010, 08:47:37 PM
Quote from: Marshalus on March 25, 2010, 01:15:19 AM
I dunno about you guys, but the only place I've ever been referred to as an "SMWOG" was on CAP Talk. Everywhere else I'm just "Senior Member" or "Mister" or "Sir" :angel:
I like "Mr" or "Miss/Ms" better than "Senior Member."
According to P151, Mr. or Ms. is the correct title.
Quote from: AirAux on March 25, 2010, 09:02:04 PM
Still trying for that warrant officer designation, huh?? Only joking..
I was thinking more of
Star Trek or especially
McHale's Navy.
Before I got my BBBB's (berry board butter bars), most addressed me as "Mr.," especially cadets. I was only called "Senior Member" a few times that I can remember.
Quote from: Short Field on March 24, 2010, 11:48:57 PM
We could call them "General" and let them wear four star rank insignia. I am sure that would make them feel better than being called a SMWOG. However, that would probably also kill any further professional development and desire for promotion to 2 Lt from a lot of them.
:clap:
Hmmm. Maybe the fact that they dislike the name would encourage them to promote, even? Since we're spitballing.
Back in the late 60s and early 70s when I was a technical sergeant, it had a lot to do with my age and the criteria necessary to be an officer.
I remember eight enlisted grades (our squadron had a Senior Master Sergeant) and four different types of warrant officers. In that era a warrant officer could be a squadron commander and staff positions were held by enlisted people. I know, I was a squadron administrative and personnel officer at the same time...as a tech sergeant.
Back then, the enlisted types and the warrant officers were all powerful...some were squadron commanders. I think my wing even had a warrant officer briefly as a group commander. The average ranks of the officers at squadron level then were second and first lieutenants. You saw very few captains and even fewer majors...let alone anything higher.
In 1973, CAP elminated enlisted ranks, I was promoted to warrant officer and held that rank roughly six months when I was appointed to second lieutenant because I had a third class radio telephone license. Level I and other promotion requirements changed.
The one good thing about that, was that officer ranks seemed to open up.