So IF you had the power to develop CAP's long term goals, what would they be ???
From at the squadron level, here's what I think:
1. Increase both senior & cadet membership totals.
2. Increase retention of current senior & cadet members.
3. Explore & obtain additionally funding sources/support
4. Expand both air & ground team missions by reaching out to other potential customers at every level.
5. Develop a closer relationship with more SAR & radio communications organizations for joint operations (support operations).
6. Continue to develop additional computer based training courses for cadets & seniors.
7. Reduce/simplify CAP uniforms for both cadets & senior members.
8. Continue to reduce paperwork record keeping by expanding computer record keeping.
Other objectives/comments ???
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 01, 2010, 05:26:29 PM
So IF you had the power to develop CAP's long term goals, what would they be ???
From at the squadron level, here's what I think:
1. Increase both senior & cadet membership totals.
2. Increase retention of current senior & cadet members.
3. Explore & obtain additionally funding sources/support
4. Expand both air & ground team missions by reaching out to other potential customers at every level.
5. Develop a closer relationship with more SAR & radio communications organizations for joint operations (support operations).
6. Continue to develop additional computer based training courses for cadets & seniors.
7. Reduce/simplify CAP uniforms for both cadets & senior members.
8. Continue to reduce paperwork record keeping by expanding computer record keeping.
Other objectives/comments ???
RM
Seems to me this is to continue in the areas that need improvement (which makes sense).
I'm the squadron's IT guy and I have two major projects but one of them will be to completely move all files & record keeping electronic the problem with this as the regulation allows is making sure there is a backup and paper copies are still needed and also protecting these files (that's another one you should add to your list).
As for membership retention, make the workload more efficient and less time consuming. I don't have a problem adding more to training such as the new NIMS requirements or making it difficult to jump through the hoops and make it clear in the regs on how retraining/currency should be done (whether it is complete do-over or partial do-over as part of refresher, etc).
Personally I have more to say about membership retention but I don't think regulations can really cover it since it probably already does but nothing one can do about it so I won't bother to mention that.
As for uniforms, I agree keep it simple and bring back the CSUs and get rid of the grey stuff.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 01, 2010, 05:26:29 PM
7. Reduce/simplify CAP uniforms for both cadets & senior members.
I think it is time for CAP to get some ABUs. Keep the Blue Branch and Name Tape.
Just my opinion though...
Quote from: mynetdude on May 01, 2010, 05:45:28 PMI'm the squadron's IT guy and I have two major projects but one of them will be to completely move all files & record keeping electronic the problem with this as the regulation allows is making sure there is a backup and paper copies are still needed and also protecting these files (that's another one you should add to your list).
10-2 says, "Use of computer storage methods is encouraged when appropriate. When computer storage is used, ensure frequent and thorough backup practices protect against possible lose of information due to storage device failure."
I guess that you could go all electronic, with no paper records at all. Just so long as it's backed up.
Quote from: EMT-83 on May 02, 2010, 12:57:18 AM
Quote from: mynetdude on May 01, 2010, 05:45:28 PMI'm the squadron's IT guy and I have two major projects but one of them will be to completely move all files & record keeping electronic the problem with this as the regulation allows is making sure there is a backup and paper copies are still needed and also protecting these files (that's another one you should add to your list).
10-2 says, "Use of computer storage methods is encouraged when appropriate. When computer storage is used, ensure frequent and thorough backup practices protect against possible lose of information due to storage device failure."
I guess that you could go all electronic, with no paper records at all. Just so long as it's backed up.
I do intend to provide means of backup not just on the PC though, the problem is going to be how to keep it simple enough yet effective. FWIW though, there still needs to be a degree of paper backups and would prefer an all electronic option but not everyone will be comfortable or skilled enough to be able to access the files reasonably easily as per the regs.
Also, remember that you still need the hard copies when you go on an activity with cadets unless you're going to haul around your netbook or laptop (which is what our squadron DCC does).
Quote from: mynetdude on May 02, 2010, 04:52:36 PM
Also, remember that you still need the hard copies when you go on an activity with cadets unless you're going to haul around your netbook or laptop (which is what our squadron DCC does).
For what?
There are no specific regs requiring paper for cadet activities.
Who leaves their house these days (at least adult professionals), without at least a netbook or a smartphone? Google Docs and similar cloud services insure that you always have access to your document libraries.
Once its a .pdf, the paper goes in the shredder. That's the whole point.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 02, 2010, 05:05:07 PM
Quote from: mynetdude on May 02, 2010, 04:52:36 PM
Also, remember that you still need the hard copies when you go on an activity with cadets unless you're going to haul around your netbook or laptop (which is what our squadron DCC does).
For what?
There are no specific regs requiring paper for cadet activities.
Who leaves their house these days (at least adult professionals), without at least a netbook or a smartphone? Google Docs and similar cloud services insure that you always have access to your document libraries.
Once its a .pdf, the paper goes in the shredder. That's the whole point.
You're right regulation doesn't require hard-copies of the paperwork during an activity but it would be dumb not to. Cadet Joe gets hurt badly, your netbook breaks in the process NOW WHAT?
Edit: somehow I didn't see the google docs part, that is an excellent idea but I would not want to put sensitive information there in the hands of a 3rd party since we still need to ensure the protection of our data (again regulation doesn't say we can't use Google Docs)
but I'd be hard pressed to use a public cloud service TBH.
At an encampment for example, the cadet better have a copy of the CAPForm 60 in his/her pocket. A form on the internet doesn't hold up legally in an accodent.
Quote from: BillB on May 02, 2010, 08:19:30 PM
At an encampment for example, the cadet better have a copy of the CAPForm 60 in his/her pocket. A form on the internet doesn't hold up legally in an accodent.
Even if a cadet brings in his CAPF60 and a SM decides to scan it and keep an electronic copy for encampment so that it can be accessed centrally by those who need to have access, medical, commandant, commander, etc.
I would like to see the IS 100/700 requirement removed for cadets under either 18 or 16 (GTM3). - Stinks to recruit a cadet telling them they can be a ground team member and they will just remain in training until the pass a test with information they wont use... Most of my young cadets can't pass this test legitimately and therefor remain in training status for years... The little they will use from the test can/should be communicated otherwise.
I think we all know there is test compromise out there with these tests... I would rather see the requirement lessened for under 18 cadets then to know that other squadrons are giving answers away... which discredits us...
I think a long term goal should be to address this situation with something that tells the cadets what they need to know, in a format not written to test and test adult professionals. It will help with retention, as well as appearance with other orgs...
We should also look at the CAP Branding thing that gets regularly discussed. As well as finding better ways to use funds that benefits all/most/more members and not just a select few.
-- Cadets, I like them... but they don't need a free ride on everything. Not when adults have to pay higher member dues, buy uniforms & equipment and often run the squadron out of pocket or choose to spend time fund-raising... to be honest, I probably get paid more per hour then I could make per hour on average fund-raising, especially if I count overtime. (this excludes business donations of course)
Quote from: RiveraJ on May 03, 2010, 04:13:21 PM
I would like to see the IS 100/700 requirement removed for cadets under either 18 or 16 (GTM3). - Stinks to recruit a cadet telling them they can be a ground team member and they will just remain in training until the pass a test with information they wont use... Most of my young cadets can't pass this test legitimately and therefor remain in training status for years... The little they will use from the test can/should be communicated otherwise.
I think we all know there is test compromise out there with these tests... I would rather see the requirement lessened for under 18 cadets then to know that other squadrons are giving answers away... which discredits us...
I think a long term goal should be to address this situation with something that tells the cadets what they need to know, in a format not written to test and test adult professionals. It will help with retention, as well as appearance with other orgs...
We should also look at the CAP Branding thing that gets regularly discussed. As well as finding better ways to use funds that benefits all/most/more members and not just a select few.
-- Cadets, I like them... but they don't need a free ride on everything. Not when adults have to pay higher member dues, buy uniforms & equipment and often run the squadron out of pocket or choose to spend time fund-raising... to be honest, I probably get paid more per hour then I could make per hour on average fund-raising, especially if I count overtime. (this excludes business donations of course)
I don't entirely agree that the test should be modified because of age; I have seen cadets both either understand and not understand the FEMA tests. There are some cadets who are involved in the high school CERT programs apart from CAP so I am not sure if they are required to maintain some FEMA courses. I have a friend who encourages the cadets to do more education/testing with FEMA beyond IS100/700 and he says they do fine. What I've noticed after someone made it a point that cadets can never be left alone/unsupervised as long as they continue to have "cadet" status on their personal records and his point was since cadets cannot be left alone/unsupervised why bother trying to qualify them? Just enter them as trainee for the skill they want to participate in and sign them off as they learn new tasks.
A fully qualified cadet vs a cadet in training doesn't mean a whole lot unless a cadet is a GTL, FLS, MSO, etc (some mission skills require cadets be 18 or over (MS for example) because a qualified senior member still needs to be with the cadet whether or not they are also qualified so it hastens their participation and less up front work needed.
Maybe the cadets don't need a free ride, or do they? CAP is supposed to spark aviation interest in our cadets in hopes they will take on military or civilian careers in aviation or other similarities; without O-Rides cadets do not get to learn about what they have practiced and learned in their Aerospace modules when it comes to aircraft flight other than using a simulator or paper airplane which IMHO is not always good enough.
Maybe what you're suggesting is perhaps the AF offer SMs who need to maintain currency/quals in an aircraft get 2 hours of flying time for free per year.
We need to stop this attitude of mass exodus away from the Air Force. Our relationship with them will only prove to better our organization and our missions. And before anyone begins to rail on me for my opinion, I do realize that Federal Law is written a specific way. BUT, for the last 10 years or so we've slowly tried to depart from any USAF oversight, to the point that some board members have considered severing ALL ties with the Air Force. These kinds of things need to stop.
Long term--
1) We should be looking at how better we can retain members and working on smoother ways to convert cadets to senior members. All too often we sell a potential member a bill of goods that we somehow don't/can't deliver....some wings have OVER qualified pilots waiting up to a year for a form 5 ride and don't even get me started on how long it takes to get these same pilots mission qualified.
2) We should be evaluating (constantly) how to make our systems more efficient. From forms and regulations to new uniforms, everything needs to move quicker and with better rates of efficiency. If that needs to include making our Ground Teams meet FEMA standards, so be it.
3) A national marketing plan. We need to be putting together television and radio commercials (I've already done some for radio) as well as print ads that showcase who we are and what we do and to show that we do more than just fly.
4) Stop treating this organization like a fortune 500 corporation, we're a 501(c)3 non-profit who is closely related to the USAF and we should be run like it. This Vanguard contract is one more way they are making it harder and harder for us to wor...er...volunteer for them.
5) Work harder at showing the federal government (Congress) how much we REALLY save taxpayers. That will help with federal funding for our missions, increase public awareness of who we are as well as protecting us from the federal budget axe. And i'm NOT talking about lobbying.
There's just a few ideas, I really could go on for hours.
Quote from: RickRutledge on May 03, 2010, 05:21:17 PM
We need to stop this attitude of mass exodus away from the Air Force. Our relationship with them will only prove to better our organization and our missions. And before anyone begins to rail on me for my opinion, I do realize that Federal Law is written a specific way. BUT, for the last 10 years or so we've slowly tried to depart from any USAF oversight, to the point that some board members have considered severing ALL ties with the Air Force. These kinds of things need to stop.
Long term--
1) We should be looking at how better we can retain members and working on smoother ways to convert cadets to senior members. All too often we sell a potential member a bill of goods that we somehow don't/can't deliver....some wings have OVER qualified pilots waiting up to a year for a form 5 ride and don't even get me started on how long it takes to get these same pilots mission qualified.
2) We should be evaluating (constantly) how to make our systems more efficient. From forms and regulations to new uniforms, everything needs to move quicker and with better rates of efficiency. If that needs to include making our Ground Teams meet FEMA standards, so be it.
3) A national marketing plan. We need to be putting together television and radio commercials (I've already done some for radio) as well as print ads that showcase who we are and what we do and to show that we do more than just fly.
4) Stop treating this organization like a fortune 500 corporation, we're a 501(c)3 non-profit who is closely related to the USAF and we should be run like it. This Vanguard contract is one more way they are making it harder and harder for us to wor...er...volunteer for them.
5) Work harder at showing the federal government (Congress) how much we REALLY save taxpayers. That will help with federal funding for our missions, increase public awareness of who we are as well as protecting us from the federal budget axe. And i'm NOT talking about lobbying.
There's just a few ideas, I really could go on for hours.
Are there any regs that prohibit pilots from going to other nearby wings and getting their Form 5s? Perhaps nearby wings can coordinate with nearby squadrons to accommodate pilots in wings that have more than enough qualified pilots after their wing has been taken care of.
I began to participate in some training outside of my wing because none is available and people outside of my wing generally know what they are doing compared to my wing and yes it is more costly, but it is more efficient because I will be able to bring back the training I received; Can any of you do that?
There was another thread about how someone talked about where one wing required pilots to be UDF qualified before they could be MP qualified and it made for quite a bit of efficiency as it got more people on the ground looking for something when the weather was bad and you still have available pilots ready to go; so again efficiency exists here.
Efficiency is my #1 goal whether it be get GT to meet FEMA standards, or participating with another wing to obtain resources, etc.
Quote from: mynetdude on May 03, 2010, 05:37:03 PM
Quote from: RickRutledge on May 03, 2010, 05:21:17 PM
We need to stop this attitude of mass exodus away from the Air Force. Our relationship with them will only prove to better our organization and our missions. And before anyone begins to rail on me for my opinion, I do realize that Federal Law is written a specific way. BUT, for the last 10 years or so we've slowly tried to depart from any USAF oversight, to the point that some board members have considered severing ALL ties with the Air Force. These kinds of things need to stop.
Long term--
1) We should be looking at how better we can retain members and working on smoother ways to convert cadets to senior members. All too often we sell a potential member a bill of goods that we somehow don't/can't deliver....some wings have OVER qualified pilots waiting up to a year for a form 5 ride and don't even get me started on how long it takes to get these same pilots mission qualified.
2) We should be evaluating (constantly) how to make our systems more efficient. From forms and regulations to new uniforms, everything needs to move quicker and with better rates of efficiency. If that needs to include making our Ground Teams meet FEMA standards, so be it.
3) A national marketing plan. We need to be putting together television and radio commercials (I've already done some for radio) as well as print ads that showcase who we are and what we do and to show that we do more than just fly.
4) Stop treating this organization like a fortune 500 corporation, we're a 501(c)3 non-profit who is closely related to the USAF and we should be run like it. This Vanguard contract is one more way they are making it harder and harder for us to wor...er...volunteer for them.
5) Work harder at showing the federal government (Congress) how much we REALLY save taxpayers. That will help with federal funding for our missions, increase public awareness of who we are as well as protecting us from the federal budget axe. And i'm NOT talking about lobbying.
There's just a few ideas, I really could go on for hours.
Are there any regs that prohibit pilots from going to other nearby wings and getting their Form 5s? Perhaps nearby wings can coordinate with nearby squadrons to accommodate pilots in wings that have more than enough qualified pilots after their wing has been taken care of.
I began to participate in some training outside of my wing because none is available and people outside of my wing generally know what they are doing compared to my wing and yes it is more costly, but it is more efficient because I will be able to bring back the training I received; Can any of you do that?
There was another thread about how someone talked about where one wing required pilots to be UDF qualified before they could be MP qualified and it made for quite a bit of efficiency as it got more people on the ground looking for something when the weather was bad and you still have available pilots ready to go; so again efficiency exists here.
Efficiency is my #1 goal whether it be get GT to meet FEMA standards, or participating with another wing to obtain resources, etc.
It all really depends on the Wing and their Wing commander when it comes to getting training in other wings. In all honesty, NHQ has to stop allowing so much Wing flexibility with regulations. I've heard of some wing commanders requiring that some member quals be taught by ONLY ONE SPECIFIC person in their wing (aside from how busy that particular instructor is) before he will sign off on the qualification for that member. This is the kind of inefficiencies I'm talking about.
If NHQ says it's one way then that's how it is, take it or leave it, as they are literally orders from Headquarters. I realize that this COULD open the door for a rogue National Commander to do all sorts of things, but if we keep the NEC vs. National Commander balance of power, the craziness can be prevented.
When I was in MAWG, we were told that you couldn't shop for Form 5's due to an incident of a pilot failing the F5 several times in her wing, not MAWG, and taking it in another wing, (Again not MAWG), then filing a lawsuit because her original wing still wouldn't let her fly. Following that incident it required Region OK and permission of both Wing/CC's to get an out of wing F5
You know what else I propose? Stricter NIMS compliance and standardized training efficiency regardless of what wing you are in.
I'm reading about GTs in a thread that use different methods of obtaining coordinates and reporting it. UTM and all this stuff I thought being NIMS compliant means we're ALL supposed to be on the same page even different CAP wings and different agencies.
Quote from: mynetdude on May 03, 2010, 05:00:15 PM
I don't entirely agree that the test should be modified because of age; I have seen cadets both either understand and not understand the FEMA tests. There are some cadets who are involved in the high school CERT programs apart from CAP so I am not sure if they are required to maintain some FEMA courses.
We can't change the FEMA Test... but we could choose not to require it for cadets under a certain age (15?). Optional for any with the cognitive ability to fully understand and pass them...
Quote from: mynetdude on May 03, 2010, 05:00:15 PM
A fully qualified cadet vs a cadet in training doesn't mean a whole lot unless a cadet is a GTL, FLS, MSO, etc (some mission skills require cadets be 18 or over (MS for example) because a qualified senior member still needs to be with the cadet whether or not they are also qualified so it hastens their participation and less up front work needed.
I find that to some cadets it means something to be "Qualified" versus in training perpetually. I've seen some cadets get discouraged, loose motivation, etc... When ES is the main motivation in CAP, its hard to retain those cadets...
Quote from: mynetdude on May 03, 2010, 05:00:15 PM
Maybe the cadets don't need a free ride, or do they? CAP is supposed to spark aviation interest in our cadets in hopes they will take on military or civilian careers in aviation or other similarities; without O-Rides cadets do not get to learn about what they have practiced and learned in their Aerospace modules when it comes to aircraft flight other than using a simulator or paper airplane which IMHO is not always good enough.
Maybe what you're suggesting is perhaps the AF offer SMs who need to maintain currency/quals in an aircraft get 2 hours of flying time for free per year.
Actually, I like the O-Ride program and what it does... I was more so thinking of the admittedly great National/regional programs/events/opportunities that are geared for the cadets only/mostly and provide free or extremely discounted rates at the cost of the general membership...
I would not be apposed to the AF sponsoring a few proficiency hours, however, I would be the first to limit its use to people who do more then just fly...
I just think that either some of the perceived disparity in "(semi)funded stuff" levels out or that CAP look to help adult volunteers. Example: If Senior Members can't get do primary flight training, are there scholarships for them to fly at a local FBO and start or upgrade certificates? What about ground team gear? Uniforms? etc...
I don't think we would be stealing from local FBO's for active members who were in x years (3, 5, 7 or even 10) to get their private in a CAP Plane.... but I guess that's another thought...
I agree with others that training should be standardized, beyond my recommendation to drop the FEMA course requirements for cadets under 15...
Quote from: RiveraJ on May 04, 2010, 02:07:43 AM
Quote from: mynetdude on May 03, 2010, 05:00:15 PM
I don't entirely agree that the test should be modified because of age; I have seen cadets both either understand and not understand the FEMA tests. There are some cadets who are involved in the high school CERT programs apart from CAP so I am not sure if they are required to maintain some FEMA courses.
We can't change the FEMA Test... but we could choose not to require it for cadets under a certain age (15?). Optional for any with the cognitive ability to fully understand and pass them...
Quote from: mynetdude on May 03, 2010, 05:00:15 PM
A fully qualified cadet vs a cadet in training doesn't mean a whole lot unless a cadet is a GTL, FLS, MSO, etc (some mission skills require cadets be 18 or over (MS for example) because a qualified senior member still needs to be with the cadet whether or not they are also qualified so it hastens their participation and less up front work needed.
I find that to some cadets it means something to be "Qualified" versus in training perpetually. I've seen some cadets get discouraged, loose motivation, etc... When ES is the main motivation in CAP, its hard to retain those cadets...
Quote from: mynetdude on May 03, 2010, 05:00:15 PM
Maybe the cadets don't need a free ride, or do they? CAP is supposed to spark aviation interest in our cadets in hopes they will take on military or civilian careers in aviation or other similarities; without O-Rides cadets do not get to learn about what they have practiced and learned in their Aerospace modules when it comes to aircraft flight other than using a simulator or paper airplane which IMHO is not always good enough.
Maybe what you're suggesting is perhaps the AF offer SMs who need to maintain currency/quals in an aircraft get 2 hours of flying time for free per year.
Actually, I like the O-Ride program and what it does... I was more so thinking of the admittedly great National/regional programs/events/opportunities that are geared for the cadets only/mostly and provide free or extremely discounted rates at the cost of the general membership...
I would not be apposed to the AF sponsoring a few proficiency hours, however, I would be the first to limit its use to people who do more then just fly...
I just think that either some of the perceived disparity in "(semi)funded stuff" levels out or that CAP look to help adult volunteers. Example: If Senior Members can't get do primary flight training, are there scholarships for them to fly at a local FBO and start or upgrade certificates? What about ground team gear? Uniforms? etc...
I don't think we would be stealing from local FBO's for active members who were in x years (3, 5, 7 or even 10) to get their private in a CAP Plane.... but I guess that's another thought...
I agree with others that training should be standardized, beyond my recommendation to drop the FEMA course requirements for cadets under 15...
I should have expanded to say that IF the AF were going to fund any SM flights, it would go towards SMs ratings and proficiencies not just any SM or for SMs who are not sure they can do MO (Mission Observer) at one point I could and at another point I would have difficulty but now with the G1000 the difficulty just went up tenfold.
Dropping FEMA requirements for cadets loses our status of being entirely NIMS compliant??? don't get me wrong I love everything cadets do; I wished I had the opportunity to be a cadet. I have seen how involved the CP is, how do cadets make time for CP, ES and School and everything else that they do including being a part of an actual mission? With the ever increasing requirements I don't see how we're keeping cadets.