CAP Talk

The more I look at this the cadet ages, I'm not to keen in keeping individuals as cadets when they reach 18 years old.   Especially if they haven't progressed to the CAP cadet officer ranks (Mitchell Award).    One might also keep the up or out 19 years old (Earhart Award), 20 years old (Eaker Award), up to 21 years old (Spatz award only).

Also if a cadet at age 18 years old is no longer attending an institute of higher education and is in the civilian work force, I'm not so sure they should be staying as a cadet past 18, OR when they complete their advanced education (if before 21 years old).

Comments?  :angel:
RM   

Those of us who go to college away from a CAP unit, effectively remove ourselves. But is it nice to have the choice to participate in the summer? You bet.

And your reasoning is?

Not wanting to keep around Cadets who don't progress is one thing (and IIRC, the 52-16 requires at least two achievements a year to stay in the program), but this:

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 29, 2010, 06:27:36 PM
The more I look at this the cadet ages, I'm not to keen in keeping individuals as cadets when they reach 18 years old.

Why?  Are we magically less productive when we reach that magic number?  I'll be 18 in three days.  I'm currently studying for my Earhart; I started the process to charter and am the cadet commander of my squadron.  I'm about to head off to the National Flight Academy, and am looking forward to the final three years of my cadet career, but I guess there's something wrong with that...

You'd be taking away the opportunity to progress in the program for a cadet who came in towards their later teen years.  And the argument that "all of those who come in that late leave the program after one or two acheivements" (or anything similar) is BS.

QuoteAlso if a cadet at age 18 years old is no longer attending an institute of higher education and is in the civilian work force, I'm not so sure they should be staying as a cadet past 18, OR when they complete their advanced education (if before 21 years old).

Again, why?    Isn't one of the things we try and pass off to our cadets how to be productive members of society?  If said cadet is successfully making his way in the work force, and decides that higher education isn't for him, why terminate him?  Seems a bit counter-productive to our mission....

Non-concur.

I would be in favor of changing things so that cadets over 18 could self-supervise and close all that nonsense, but otherwise
a cadet is a cadet.

You would be effectively closing off recruiting to anyone over about 16.

another bad idea.

Don't forget that we have a lot of 18 yos still in high school. Unless their birthday is before October, most kids turn 18 while in their senior year.  If we kicked them out at 18, a lot woudl still be in high school adn also remove their graduadtion summer from their oppurtunity to do CAP cadet activities.  Heck, I went to IACE the summer after I graduated.

Also, what problem has arisen that makes cadets over 18 a bad idea?

Guys, troll.

Quote from: PhoenixCadet on May 29, 2010, 07:30:55 PM
Not wanting to keep around Cadets who don't progress is one thing (and IIRC, the 52-16 requires at least two achievements a year to stay in the program), but this:

Incorrect,

QuoteCadets who fail to progress in the Cadet Program by completing at least two achievements per year may be terminated from the program

Emphasis mine

I'm glad there's a lot of years of thought into CAPR 52-16.

While I feel a bit for the ones that start at 16 or so, there is still plenty of time for them to get the Mitchell Award.  They may have to put up with "crap" from younger ones for a little while, however- being older it's usually a bit easier to explain things to them and tell them "just put up with it", and the opposite, they'll not have to put up with much as they may just "get it" faster. Sure, you have to go to encampment as a basic, but if you have your uniform squared away, you play the game with making up your rack, stacking the socks, etc., you don't give those "mean" flight sergeants, element leaders, etc., much to get in your face about.

If they have their mind made up, and that Mitchell on the horizon, knowing what it can bring them in the Air Force, then they probably will just grin and bear it, too.

Radioman, do you just spend your days coming up with oddball ideas to change everything about CAP?

Nothing really magical happens when they turn 18 that should qualify or disqualify them for anything. The same probably goes for 21, but I understand the need to have a cutoff somewhere. The current process works fine and I think is actually preferable to say, the Boy Scouts, where after 18 you're pretty much shoved out of the program.

As I've stated repeatedly elsewhere on the board, we need clearer separation between the younger 12-14/15 y. o. cadets) and the older ones.

I don't agree with Radioman's approach...too complex, for one reason...but it's a step in the right direction.

Honestly,  I have never had any issues with cadet's age.  In reality, the number of 17+ new cadets is almost nill because they've already found different sports and organizations to spend their time with.  The cadets in the 16+ range are typically brought up from the 12-13 year old range and act in the cadet staff positions.  IME, the balance works out really well.

12-13 year olds are typically in flight cadets.
13-14 year olds are typically flight sergeants.
14-15 year olds are typically flight commanders or first sergeants.
15-16 year olds are usually in some sort of support staff function or C/DC or C/XO
17+ usually end up being our Cadet Commanders.

Even then, sometimes the shift is a bit upwards if it works that way. 

Either way, I've never had a problem with motivation because a younger person was "in charge" of an older one. 

I am an 18 y/o cadet, there is no reason why I should be kicked out of the program because of my age. There has never been any problems between myself or any younger cadets. Also I didn't get my mitchell until after I had been 18 for 6 months, I was still active, but just took my time getting my mitchell. Eliminating everyone over the age of 18 would do more harm to the program than good. Older cadets are the cadet that set examples for younger cadets and also help the younger cadets to mature.

I have been in CAP since Jan of 05 (yes i took my super sweet time promoting but i've gained alot of knowledge) and I was 13 when I joined, I can still remember the cadets I looked up to and they were all 18 and over, and in college. I was no where near them in maturity level, but it motivated me to "grow up" a bit and strive to do more in the wing in hopes of being like them one day. I don't know how things are in other wings but just in my own wing I would say that 95% of all cadets over the age of 18 have been in the program since they were 14. Because of that we have a better understanding of the program than someone whose only 16 and joined when they were 14, and can pass down our years of knowledge and experience to other cadets.

Eliminating that bracket of cadets would severely hinder the cadet program, and furthermore I personally believe that to be a form of discrimination. Telling someone that they can no longer be a cadet just because they turned 18, and before you all jump on me I believe this to be different than the 21 rule. At age 18 most people are in college, and still live with there parents, or living in a dorm, and they still stay with their parents during the summer. At age 18 your considered a "mini adult" if you will. While at age 21, you are a "full adult", you gain the ability to drink and also more responsibility is placed on you because its a different mind set than turning 18, if that makes sense to anyone else but me. This is the way I see things, I think that cutting out cadets from 18-21 would be a horrible idea.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on June 01, 2010, 07:43:50 PM
As I've stated repeatedly elsewhere on the board, we need clearer separation between the younger 12-14/15 y. o. cadets) and the older ones.

That would probably work best at encampments and the like. When you get down to the squadron level, we might have an extremely different situation. We might have say, 3 little 12 year old cadets, and 16 16-year-old cadets. And to add on to that, the little cadets would feel left out.

If only we could design a maturity test. That way the mare mature cadets could go and talk about whatever and not have to worry about the 12 year old hearing and telling their parents/guardians what they heard at CAP that meeting that night.

I regularly see cadets that are 16 who join just to put it on a collage application or for a job interview. Those are the cadets that need to advance, to help them get their ROTC Scholarship or get whatever job they want. I myself am a 15 year-old cadet and I started when I was 12. I believe that becoming a cadet has shaped me throughout those 3, almost 4 years. And I plan to stay a cadet (unless forced to change) during collage and that should be the choice every cadet should make if they stay in CAP that 18-21 age bracket. 

Well, That's the end of my rant.

Quote from: Fly Boy on June 01, 2010, 08:43:53 PM
If only we could design a maturity test. That way the mare mature cadets could go and talk about whatever and not have to worry about the 12 year old hearing and telling their parents/guardians what they heard at CAP that meeting that night.

Uh - sorry, but no.  How about refraining from talking about inappropriate things no matter who's around you, while at a CAP activity?  If you're "going off to talk about whatever, and not having to worry", your squadron leadership needs some lessons on how to keep cadets busy.  "Maturity tests" should be the least of your worries.

Quote from: PhoenixCadet on June 01, 2010, 09:02:53 PM

Quote from: Fly Boy on June 01, 2010, 08:43:53 PM
If only we could design a maturity test. That way the mare mature cadets could go and talk about whatever and not have to worry about the 12 year old hearing and telling their parents/guardians what they heard at CAP that meeting that night.

Uh - sorry, but no.  How about refraining from talking about inappropriate things no matter who's around you, while at a CAP activity?  If you're "going off to talk about whatever, and not having to worry", your squadron leadership needs some lessons on how to keep cadets busy.  "Maturity tests" should be the least of your worries.

I'm sorry, that's a bad example. I just believe that maturity in the cadet should always be a consideration. Anyway, back to the reason this thread was created

Okay....I've said this before.....and got shot down for it.

I too think we have a problem with the over 18 cadets.....but I don't see the problem as being big enough to actually change the CAP Cadet Program over.

My basic premise is that cadets are by definition (in a CAP context) are children.  But we blur the lines when you have someone who is a legal adult in every other context but is still considered a a child by CAP rules and regulations.

Tie this in with the Flight Officer issue and you optional status of those over 18 it creates a lot of confusion.

Having said that.......in order to "fix" this "problem" would require a major rewrite of the cadet program and a major shift in a lot of our paradigms that are, frankly, just not worth the effort.

The program works.....not perfectly, but it works.

While LordMonar's point is correct -- it would be quite a project re-tooling CP -- something needs to be done; at the very least, someone should study the situation...I admit my evidence is entirely observational and anecdotal.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on June 02, 2010, 06:25:00 PM
While LordMonar's point is correct -- it would be quite a project re-tooling CP -- something needs to be done; at the very least, someone should study the situation...I admit my evidence is entirely observational and anecdotal.

Does anyone have any statistics on how many 19-20 year old cadets there are? I'm pretty sure I'm in a VERY small minority.

And even if there is a drop between 18 and 19, how many are active?

Wow... this topic does recycle itself a lot.  Instead of making a new post, here's what I had to say in June 2008 about the subject (and my opinion still hasn't changed):

Quote
    The cadet program needs to end at 18, period.

I completely disagree with this, from several angles.  Here goes:

First; I was a cadet that choose to stay in the program until I was 21.  I did this for several reasons, but mostly because as a cadet I could still receive primary flight training in CAP aircraft, but as a senior (even a Flight Officer) I couldn't.  I was able to receive CAP Flight Scholarships, and earn my private pilot license.

Second point, I joined as a cadet when I was 12 (almost 13).  I earned my Spaatz award when I was 18.  About 3/4 of the really cool things I did as a cadet, and the biggest life lessons I learned from the program came AFTER I had gotten my Spaatz Award (and its not like I wasn't active before I got it).  Yes, it was a little weird being a Ground Team Leader and having to have a Senior Member "babysitter" with me, but I was able to work well with said senior member BECAUSE of the training I received in the Cadet Program.  Learning how to work with people in awkward situations like that has also been a huge help in what I've done later in CAP as well as in life.

Thirdly, it is each individuals choice as to what he/she wants to do once he/she hits that magic 18 number.  My choice to stay a cadet was one of the best I ever made in CAP.  However, there are two FO's in my squadron right now that the decision to turn senior was probably one of the best ones they made.  The choice is there for a reason; each individual has different priorities and wants different things from the program, we need to make sure that each person has an option that will fit what they want and what the unit needs the best.

My fourth point, now speaking as the Deputy Commander for Cadets of a large squadron, I currently have 3 cadets over 18 that are active in my squadron.  One is going after his Spaatz, two others just recently joined.  Before they joined, I laid out what their options were as either a senior member or a cadet.  Both choose to become cadets so that they could learn to fly in CAP aircraft, and be eligible for a wider variety of CAP Flight Scholarships.  All three are also currently working on their Scanner/Observer ratings, and participating actively in the program.  I've had zero problems with the two 18 year olds being led by a flight sergeant who is 14.  I'm fortunate in that I have a mature cadet staff, as well as mature 18 year olds who know what my expectations for their behavior are, and they have yet to fail to completely impress me with their performance.

Finally, there already exists a program to give former cadets more credit to completing senior member professional development criteria once they reach the dark side.  For those that haven't seen that yet, log onto eServices and look at the interim change letter from 5 Jun 08 posted there.  This gets rid of the need for an "OTC" program, etc.

To address this issue:

Quote
    "The problem is that we often make a lot of assumptions . . . "
    "The word "cadet" often is attached to a mental picture of a 12-14 year old. "
    "I have had a lot of conversations with over 18 cadets who resent being treated like children."
    which leads to "angst and Knuckel-biting ."

I've learned that what you get out of CAP is what you put into it.  If you're an over 18 cadet who resents some of the restrictions placed on cadets in the regs, then turn senior or stop complaining.  If you resent getting treated like a child by other senior members, guess what, it won't get better once you're a senior!!  I'm personally young enough to be the grandchild of many of the other seniors that I work with on a routine basis.  But personally, I've had almost no problems as either a cadet or a senior with this.  If you conduct yourself in a mature manner, you generally won't have a problem.

So please, to repeat what's been said numerous times already, lets not fix something that's not broken.  Sorry for the rant, but this is an issue that is obviously very near and dear to my heart.

Age statistics for the cadet program have recently been posted on the National HQ Cadet Blog.  Go there for the complete listing.

9% of cadets are 18 years old or older.

Average cadet age is 15.2.

Really not an issue -- ROTC/Academy "cadets" are over 18, are part of an educational program, and basically have 0 real responsibility for the oversight of the program they are in.  However, if they wanted they could "go senior" and join the services.   Pretty close to the same thing as in CAP. 

That being said, if we were starting over I would probably end the cadet program at within 1 year of completion of high school or age 19, whichever comes last.  But, its not worth worrying over at this point. 

Quote from: RiverAux on June 02, 2010, 08:26:06 PM
ROTC/Academy "cadets" are over 18, are part of an educational program, and basically have 0 real responsibility for the oversight of the program they are in.  However, if they wanted they could "go senior" and join the services.   Pretty close to the same thing as in CAP.

So being enrolled in a program that leads to a commission in the armed forces is pretty close to the same thing in CAP?  Last time I looked, topping out in the CAP cadet program allows advanced promotion, if you join the RM, to E-3.  Finishing the ROTC/Academy program makes you a 0-1. 

I really don't think you can compare a ROTC/Academy cadet dropping out of the commissioning program in order to serve enlisted with a CAP cadet transferring to the adult side of CAP.

In the Academy/AFROTC cadet corps, most cadet activities are planned and ran by the cadets.  The Commissioned Officers provided academic instruction and oversight of the cadet activities.   

Quote from: Short Field on June 02, 2010, 09:15:12 PM
So being enrolled in a program that leads to a commission in the armed forces is pretty close to the same thing in CAP?

Absolutely.

By definition a "cadet" is simply a military student, normally being trained as an officer.

Our cadets study leadership, aerospace, character development, engage in a vigorous physical fitness program, and attend activities planned and run by cadets designed to support the program.

When I went through ROTC in preparation for my Army commission I studied leadership (often exactly the same materials I studied as a CAP cadet), character development, engaged in a vigorous physical fitness program and attended various activities planned and run by cadets designed to support the program.

Seemed kind of similar to me, then and now.

When I was a CAP cadet we had weekly leadership lab and trained in drill and ceremonies.  As an Army cadet we had weekly leadership labs and trained in (wait for it . . . ) drill and ceremonies. (Well, and some weapon training too.  But not too much given our academic setting.)

I had to go to a summer encampment to get my Mitchell.  I had to go to a summer camp to get my Army commission.  Both involved living a WWII-era barracks and a fair amount of time scrubbing the latrine.  At the time, I thought encampment was harder.

Quote
I really don't think you can compare a ROTC/Academy cadet dropping out of the commissioning program in order to serve enlisted with a CAP cadet transferring to the adult side of CAP.

I guess I agree that the two events have differential consequences, but a better analogy might be a Spaatz cadet turning senior and a MSIV getting commissioned.

Each represents a lot of time, effort, and some military training.

QuoteIn the Academy/AFROTC cadet corps, most cadet activities are planned and ran by the cadets.  The Commissioned Officers provided academic instruction and oversight of the cadet activities.   

Non-concur in your implication.  CAP cadet activities should be planned and run by cadets whenver reasonably feasible, just like my ROTC experience.

Remember, Uncle Sam has cadets ranging from the age of 13 or so (JROTC) all the way up to 30 years of age (and older) in the Academies.  If Uncle Sam doesn't care about whether his cadets are over or under the age of 18, why should we get wrapped around the axle worrying about it?

Also, the age of majority in this country has changed before, and may well change again.  It is not even the same in all of our wings.  It is certainly not 18 in Puerto Rico, for example.  "Cadethood" and "adulthood" are simply unrelated concepts, and trying to impose one paradigm upon the other is silly.

This is really in the "if it's not broke, don't fix it" category.  There is simply no earthly reason to throw out 10% or our cadet corps without at least some sort of problem statement that might suggest depriving our best and brightest of scholarships and enlistment incentives is a good idea.

Ned Lee
#356
National Cadet Advisor (Acting)

Quote from: Ned on June 02, 2010, 09:48:45 PM

Quote from: Short Field on June 02, 2010, 09:15:12 PM
So being enrolled in a program that leads to a commission in the armed forces is pretty close to the same thing in CAP?

Quote from: Ned on June 02, 2010, 09:48:45 PM
Absolutely.  By definition a "cadet" is simply a military student, normally being trained as an officer.

Guess you need to start lobbying the military to accept our top CAP cadets as O-1s instead of E-3s (at the completion of basic training).

Quote
I really don't think you can compare a ROTC/Academy cadet dropping out of the commissioning program in order to serve enlisted with a CAP cadet transferring to the adult side of CAP.

Quote from: Ned on June 02, 2010, 09:48:45 PM
I guess I agree that the two events have differential consequences, but a better analogy might be a Spaatz cadet turning senior and a MSIV getting commissioned.

Now you are comparing a SM to a RM 2Lt?  Apples and Oranges.

QuoteIn the Academy/AFROTC cadet corps, most cadet activities are planned and ran by the cadets.  The Commissioned Officers provided academic instruction and oversight of the cadet activities.   

Quote from: Ned on June 02, 2010, 09:48:45 PM
Non-concur in your implication.  CAP cadet activities should be planned and run by cadets whenver reasonably feasible, just like my ROTC experience.

Read what I was responding to.  I was rebutting the implication that

Quote from: RiverAux on June 02, 2010, 08:26:06 PM
ROTC/Academy "cadets" are over 18, are part of an educational program, and basically have 0 real responsibility for the oversight of the program they are in.  However, if they wanted they could "go senior" and join the services.   Pretty close to the same thing as in CAP. 

Quote from: Ned on June 02, 2010, 09:48:45 PM
Remember, Uncle Sam has cadets ranging from the age of 13 or so (JROTC) all the way up to 30 years of age (and older) in the Academies.  If Uncle Sam doesn't care about whether his cadets are over or under the age of 18, why should we get wrapped around the axle worrying about it?

JROTC and ROTC are separate programs, same thing for the Academies.  I haven't seen JROTC cadets being trained by ROTC cadets and participating in ROTC activities and summer camps.  I really have not seen 16 year old JROTC cadets leading 19 year old ROTC cadets in activities.

The only problem I see with the current set up is you can have a 19 year old squadron commander that is an FO and 20 year old cadets that are subordinate to him and treated legally as children. That's stupid. Make all under 21 members cadets or all over 18 members SM but you shouldn't have that gray area.

Quote from: davidsinn on June 02, 2010, 10:45:22 PM
The only problem I see with the current set up is you can have a 19 year old squadron commander that is an FO and 20 year old cadets that are subordinate to him and treated legally as children. That's stupid. Make all under 21 members cadets or all over 18 members SM but you shouldn't have that gray area.

No cadets should ever be treated as "children;" that would indeed be stupid.

Cadets should be treated as the students that they are.  Some happen to be under the age of majority, some are over. It makes no difference.

In college I saw a fair number of returning students that were older than the TAs leading some sessions and even older than some of the proffesors.  They were treated as students, not children.

When I was a 2Lt platoon leader, my platoon sergeant was considerably older.  He didn't treat me as a child.  (Well, OK sometimes when we were alone.)

There really is no "grey area" regardless of how often you (and others) claim there is.  At the risk of repeating myself, the United States Goverment does not make the distinction that you are claiming to make.  If Uncle Sam doesn't have a grey area, why do we think we do?

And after speaking with the leaders of JROTC and ROTC, I can tell you that they are jealous of some aspects of our program - particularly our age range.  They would love to have contact with young people for as long as we can.  They dislike the artificial four year limitation imposed because they are school-based rather than community based.

And you'd be surprised how often ROTC cadets work with JROTC cadets.  And the fact that there have to be separate programs does not change the fact that the participants are all "cadets," regardless of the age of majority in that particular location.

And we are indeed working on getting our cadet officers advanced placement in commissioning programs.  To that end, watch of alignment and harmonization with some of our requirements with USAF pre-commissioning standards.  But I have already sat and watched Air University instructors instructing CAP cadets at COS with materials and curricula straight out of SOS.

Without some sort of statement of the "problem" we are trying to solve by forcibly tossing out several thousand cadets, I'm having trouble understanding the purpose of this discussion.

Quote from: Pingree1492 on June 02, 2010, 07:14:08 PM
Finally, there already exists a program to give former cadets more credit to completing senior member professional development criteria once they reach the dark side.  For those that haven't seen that yet, log onto eServices and look at the interim change letter from 5 Jun 08 posted there.  This gets rid of the need for an "OTC" program, etc. th over 18 cadets who resent being treated like children."

Are you referring to the Mitchell -> 2d Lt, Earhart -> 1st Lt, Spaatz -> Capt transitions?  I can't seem to find any ICL for that date / subject.

Quote from: Ned on June 02, 2010, 11:04:26 PM

Quote from: davidsinn on June 02, 2010, 10:45:22 PM
The only problem I see with the current set up is you can have a 19 year old squadron commander that is an FO and 20 year old cadets that are subordinate to him and treated legally as children. That's stupid. Make all under 21 members cadets or all over 18 members SM but you shouldn't have that gray area.

No cadets should ever be treated as "children;" that would indeed be stupid.

Cadets should be treated as the students that they are.  Some happen to be under the age of majority, some are over. It makes no difference.

In college I saw a fair number of returning students that were older than the TAs leading some sessions and even older than some of the proffesors.  They were treated as students, not children.

When I was a 2Lt platoon leader, my platoon sergeant was considerably older.  He didn't treat me as a child.  (Well, OK sometimes when we were alone.)

There really is no "grey area" regardless of how often you (and others) claim there is.  At the risk of repeating myself, the United States Goverment does not make the distinction that you are claiming to make.  If Uncle Sam doesn't have a grey area, why do we think we do?

And after speaking with the leaders of JROTC and ROTC, I can tell you that they are jealous of some aspects of our program - particularly our age range.  They would love to have contact with young people for as long as we can.  They dislike the artificial four year limitation imposed because they are school-based rather than community based.

And you'd be surprised how often ROTC cadets work with JROTC cadets.  And the fact that there have to be separate programs does not change the fact that the participants are all "cadets," regardless of the age of majority in that particular location.

And we are indeed working on getting our cadet officers advanced placement in commissioning programs.  To that end, watch of alignment and harmonization with some of our requirements with USAF pre-commissioning standards.  But I have already sat and watched Air University instructors instructing CAP cadets at COS with materials and curricula straight out of SOS.

Without some sort of statement of the "problem" we are trying to solve by forcibly tossing out several thousand cadets, I'm having trouble understanding the purpose of this discussion.

By children I mean we do not treat them as legal adults. They can not be responsible or supervise for themselves. They can not sign their own forms. Yet we allow someone younger to sign as the commander and to be the "legal adult" present.

Quote from: RiverAux on June 02, 2010, 08:26:06 PM
Really not an issue -- ROTC/Academy "cadets" are over 18, are part of an educational program, and basically have 0 real responsibility for the oversight of the program they are in.  However, if they wanted they could "go senior" and join the services.   Pretty close to the same thing as in CAP. 

That being said, if we were starting over I would probably end the cadet program at within 1 year of completion of high school or age 19, whichever comes last.  But, its not worth worrying over at this point.

Not even close to a proper anlogy with CAP's cadet program.

Quote from: Ned on June 02, 2010, 11:04:26 PM
No cadets should ever be treated as "children;" that would indeed be stupid.

Cadets should be treated as the students that they are.  Some happen to be under the age of majority, some are over. It makes no difference.

Ned,

I know you and I went round and round on this before....and for the most part I do agree with your point of view....and that we don't really need to "fix" anything....but I got to throw the BS flag on this statement.  There are lots of rules that restrict what a cadet can or cannot due simply based on their status as a cadet and not on their age, maturity or skills.

This is the "confustion" that I talk about with the current set of rules we work with.

Quote from: lordmonar on June 03, 2010, 12:17:28 AM
There are lots of rules that restrict what a cadet can or cannot due simply based on their status as a cadet and not on their age, maturity or skills.

Did you mean what you said here?  Because I don't disagree with restrictions based on "cadet status" like requriing senior supervision.

As we've discussed before, we treat 18 year old high school students as students that require supervision even if they are over the age of majority in their location.  Even as a 28 year old ROTC cadet, I still needed to have a cadre member present on FTXs.


Same same.

Quote from: davidsinn on June 03, 2010, 12:05:51 AMBy children I mean we do not treat them as legal adults. They can not be responsible or supervise for themselves. They can not sign their own forms. Yet we allow someone younger to sign as the commander and to be the "legal adult" present.

True enough, but why do you choose to see this as a "problem" that requires tossing a couple of thousand of our best cadets out on the street?

Quote from: davidsinn on June 02, 2010, 10:45:22 PM
The only problem I see with the current set up is you can have a 19 year old squadron commander that is an FO and 20 year old cadets that are subordinate to him and treated legally as children.

How often does that happen?  How many under 21 squadron commanders do you think there are in CAP at any one time?  I bet its less than half a dozen. 

Quote from: RiverAux on June 03, 2010, 02:13:10 AM

Quote from: davidsinn on June 02, 2010, 10:45:22 PM
The only problem I see with the current set up is you can have a 19 year old squadron commander that is an FO and 20 year old cadets that are subordinate to him and treated legally as children.

How often does that happen?  How many under 21 squadron commanders do you think there are in CAP at any one time?  I bet its less than half a dozen.

I bet it's less than that but my point still stands. You are treating one person as an adult yet not treating another, older person as an adult.

Quote from: Ned on June 03, 2010, 12:25:20 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on June 03, 2010, 12:17:28 AM
There are lots of rules that restrict what a cadet can or cannot due simply based on their status as a cadet and not on their age, maturity or skills.

Did you mean what you said here?  Because I don't disagree with restrictions based on "cadet status" like requriing senior supervision.

As we've discussed before, we treat 18 year old high school students as students that require supervision even if they are over the age of majority in their location.  Even as a 28 year old ROTC cadet, I still needed to have a cadre member present on FTXs.


Same same.

Well....same but different.   Anytime you talk ROTC you are starting with a group of people who are 99% adults to begin with (and the other 1% will soon follow).  I'm not sure that it is a fair comparison.

Again...I agree that we don't need to fix anything....but you have to admit that the over 18 and under 21 members (both senior and cadet) create a gray area that there are no easy answers to solve.

But to use your comparison:

CAP Cadet over 18 who is married must cross over to the gray side.
CAP Cadet who joins goes extened active duty guard (a deployment) must cross over to the gray side.
CAP Cadet who turns 18 must take Senior Member level cadet protection training.

ROTC cadet who gets married does not have do anything.
ROTC cadet who is NG and goes on a deployment does not have to do anything.
ROTC cadets can be 18-35 and they are all treated all the same.

These three areas alone shows how the systems are different.

I agree that it would be too hard to rewrite the program and it would hurt us in a lot of way if we made some sort of hard date (18) where a cadet must cross over.  But you have to admit that there is a lot of confusion and crossed circuits when we talk about CAP cadets.

It occurs to me that it would not be that difficult to revise the cadet program: simply reserve Spaatz and Eaker milestone awards for those of appropriate age (we can argue that one later, let's say 16 + for starters).

Presto! No more 13 year old cadet colonels!

My big concern is not with the 'legal rights' of 18 year old cadets, but with the separation of the age groups -- there are reasons (psychological, emotional maturity, social adaptation) junior high kids are kept separate from high school kids, and why college students are not generally mixed with those in high school.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on June 03, 2010, 05:12:18 PM
It occurs to me that it would not be that difficult to revise the cadet program: simply reserve Spaatz and Eaker milestone awards for those of appropriate age (we can argue that one later, let's say 16 + for starters).

Presto! No more 13 year old cadet colonels!

Already done - based on current testing rules and minimum entry age requirements this is no longer a possibility.  Someone do the math, but I believe 16 is now the practical minimum for Spaatz.

Quote from: RiverAux on June 03, 2010, 02:13:10 AM

Quote from: davidsinn on June 02, 2010, 10:45:22 PM
The only problem I see with the current set up is you can have a 19 year old squadron commander that is an FO and 20 year old cadets that are subordinate to him and treated legally as children.

How often does that happen?  How many under 21 squadron commanders do you think there are in CAP at any one time?  I bet its less than half a dozen.

Since the FO grades aren't tracked by NHQ, there's no way to tell, however last I checked there were 10 SMWOG's, and a few could be  in those numbers.

The mere fact that its a possibility is a program "crack" if you ask me, even if the numbers are small.

Unless they're prior enlisted choosing to keep their RM grade, and not participating in PD, why would any SMWOG be a commander of any size in CAP? I'm now within sight of my butter bars and I can say without hesitation I am no where near qualified to run a squadron.

Presuming up to 2 months to get the Curry and less than a month to take the Spaatz after the Eaker, there are 40 months.  Join at 12 - Spaatz at just under 16.  But very few never miss a beat.

Quote from: Marshalus on June 03, 2010, 06:43:59 PM
Unless they're prior enlisted choosing to keep their RM grade, and not participating in PD, why would any SMWOG be a commander of any size in CAP? I'm now within sight of my butter bars and I can say without hesitation I am no where near qualified to run a squadron.

All fight officers are listed as SMWOG grades in E-services.

As far as who can be a squadron commander....the only criteria is having completed Level 1.   And the time and time again the main quality CAP looks for in their leaders is stepping up to the plate.  So in principle I agree with you......a FO...heck even some Capts are not qualified to be squadron commanders.....but they may be the only ones willing to do the job.

But that is an argument for a different thread.  :P

Quote from: lordmonar on June 03, 2010, 07:39:01 PM

[snip]
As far as who can be a squadron commander....the only criteria is having completed Level 1.   [snip]

And breathing, don't forget breathing. 

Marshallus, be careful you don't miss any meetings, that's how a lot of us got the job...   >:D

Quote from: lordmonar on June 03, 2010, 07:39:01 PM

Quote from: Marshalus on June 03, 2010, 06:43:59 PM
Unless they're prior enlisted choosing to keep their RM grade, and not participating in PD, why would any SMWOG be a commander of any size in CAP? I'm now within sight of my butter bars and I can say without hesitation I am no where near qualified to run a squadron.

All fight officers are listed as SMWOG grades in E-services.

As far as who can be a squadron commander....the only criteria is having completed Level 1.   And the time and time again the main quality CAP looks for in their leaders is stepping up to the plate.  So in principle I agree with you......a FO...heck even some Capts are not qualified to be squadron commanders.....but they may be the only ones willing to do the job.
But that is an argument for a different thread.  :P

I have to disagree with that. My Sq. commander was a 1st Lt and he was an extremely capable leader of cadets. Then he turned Captain, and it is still a very good experience for my flight of cadets to have a Sq. commander like ours.
I guess that's just my Sq. though.

Quote from: Al Sayre on June 04, 2010, 12:21:49 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on June 03, 2010, 07:39:01 PM

[snip]
As far as who can be a squadron commander....the only criteria is having completed Level 1.   [snip]

And breathing, don't forget breathing. 

Marshallus, be careful you don't miss any meetings, that's how a lot of us got the job...   >:D

Oh, I have no doubt. For a while I was picking up a new staff position each week, now it's slowed to about once a month.

Quote from: HGjunkie on June 04, 2010, 01:25:36 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on June 03, 2010, 07:39:01 PM

Quote from: Marshalus on June 03, 2010, 06:43:59 PM
Unless they're prior enlisted choosing to keep their RM grade, and not participating in PD, why would any SMWOG be a commander of any size in CAP? I'm now within sight of my butter bars and I can say without hesitation I am no where near qualified to run a squadron.

All fight officers are listed as SMWOG grades in E-services.

As far as who can be a squadron commander....the only criteria is having completed Level 1.   And the time and time again the main quality CAP looks for in their leaders is stepping up to the plate.  So in principle I agree with you......a FO...heck even some Capts are not qualified to be squadron commanders.....but they may be the only ones willing to do the job.
But that is an argument for a different thread.  :P

I have to disagree with that. My Sq. commander was a 1st Lt and he was an extremely capable leader of cadets. Then he turned Captain, and it is still a very good experience for my flight of cadets to have a Sq. commander like ours.
I guess that's just my Sq. though.

Which part of "some" are you haveing trouble of understanding?

I was a lowly 2d Lt when I got chucked into the commander's seat...I was not trained and not really ready for the job....I made a lot of mistakes.  Second time around I was a Capt and still making mistakes.

So good on you that you got a good commander who is only a Lt.

Now back to our story.

Quote from: lordmonar on June 04, 2010, 03:04:28 AM

Quote from: HGjunkie on June 04, 2010, 01:25:36 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on June 03, 2010, 07:39:01 PM

Quote from: Marshalus on June 03, 2010, 06:43:59 PM
Unless they're prior enlisted choosing to keep their RM grade, and not participating in PD, why would any SMWOG be a commander of any size in CAP? I'm now within sight of my butter bars and I can say without hesitation I am no where near qualified to run a squadron.

All fight officers are listed as SMWOG grades in E-services.

As far as who can be a squadron commander....the only criteria is having completed Level 1.   And the time and time again the main quality CAP looks for in their leaders is stepping up to the plate.  So in principle I agree with you......a FO...heck even some Capts are not qualified to be squadron commanders.....but they may be the only ones willing to do the job.
But that is an argument for a different thread.  :P

I have to disagree with that. My Sq. commander was a 1st Lt and he was an extremely capable leader of cadets. Then he turned Captain, and it is still a very good experience for my flight of cadets to have a Sq. commander like ours.
I guess that's just my Sq. though.

Which part of "some" are you haveing trouble of understanding?

I was a lowly 2d Lt when I got chucked into the commander's seat...I was not trained and not really ready for the job....I made a lot of mistakes.  Second time around I was a Capt and still making mistakes.

So good on you that you got a good commander who is only a Lt.

Now back to our story.

umm... in case you couldn't read it, he promoted to captain now. I guess every body's commander is different.
YMMV

Quote from: HGjunkie on June 05, 2010, 08:58:02 PM
I guess every body's commander is different.

...until they reach Major, at which time they all magically synchronize and become robots.

Of course all commanders are different, just like all cadet NCOs are different.  (Or is it safe to say you're the exact carbon-copy of each and every other C/SSgt in the program?) That was kinda the point of the past few posts...

Quote from: PhoenixCadet on June 06, 2010, 02:35:15 AM

Quote from: HGjunkie on June 05, 2010, 08:58:02 PM
I guess every body's commander is different.

...until they reach Major, at which time they all magically synchronize and become robots.

Of course all commanders are different, just like all cadet NCOs are different.  (Or is it safe to say you're the exact carbon-copy of each and every other C/SSgt in the program?) That was kinda the point of the past few posts...

Exactly, my old Sq. commander was a major and he was completely terrible at being a squadron commander.

not too sure how other C/SSgts are.

Quote from: HGjunkie on June 06, 2010, 01:29:10 PM
Exactly, my old Sq. commander was a major and he was completely terrible at being a squadron commander.

not too sure how other C/SSgts are.

That was sarcasm....

sarcasm marks would have been helpful.

If the different-aged cadets were togther for an extended time (a month or more) for at least 6 hours a day, I can see where ZigZag's point may have bearing.  But the amount of time that they are together is not enough time for those points to come into play.  If anything, having the different age ranges are a benefit to the program.

Quote from: HGjunkie on June 06, 2010, 01:29:10 PM
Exactly, my old Sq. commander was a major and he was completely terrible at being a squadron commander.

not too sure how other C/SSgts are.

FACEPALM

It's okay, you're still somewhat new  ;)

Quote from: DakRadz on June 13, 2010, 09:11:37 PM

Quote from: HGjunkie on June 06, 2010, 01:29:10 PM
Exactly, my old Sq. commander was a major and he was completely terrible at being a squadron commander.

not too sure how other C/SSgts are.

FACEPALM

It's okay, you're still somewhat new  ;)

8)

Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on June 11, 2010, 05:00:56 PM
If the different-aged cadets were togther for an extended time (a month or more) for at least 6 hours a day, I can see where ZigZag's point may have bearing.  But the amount of time that they are together is not enough time for those points to come into play.  If anything, having the different age ranges are a benefit to the program.

My point is dual:

1) on overnight activities (courses, encampments, NCSAs, etc.)
2) socializing outside formal CAP meeting time

I am not saying the 18-21 y.o. age group should have nothing to do with younger cadets, but that they should have separate status, separate program, and especially separate quarters when necessary.

Technically, it's 18-20, unless I'm much mistaken. I was under the impression that cadets became seniors on the 21st birthday.

I'll be 18 in 6 months- I've joined only a year ago, already nearing my Mitchell, and am the C/CC in all but rank. I give and participate actively.

You can't lump all of us together, just because of a bad experience/situation with a few.

Golly gee willikers, if I don't get selected for a service academy, I've selected my college so that I can be active in MY current unit. I wouldn't be C/CC, more an advisor, but I certainly want to continue my give/take relationship with CAP- and mostly it's give, out of my wallet.

Quote from: DakRadz on June 15, 2010, 02:22:26 AM
Technically, it's 18-20, unless I'm much mistaken. I was under the impression that cadets became seniors on the 21st birthday.

I'll be 18 in 6 months- I've joined only a year ago, already nearing my Mitchell, and am the C/CC in all but rank. I give and participate actively.

You can't lump all of us together, just because of a bad experience/situation with a few.

Golly gee willikers, if I don't get selected for a service academy, I've selected my college so that I can be active in MY current unit. I wouldn't be C/CC, more an advisor, but I certainly want to continue my give/take relationship with CAP- and mostly it's give, out of my wallet.

I joined late too, almost 17 y.o., I understand....I'm not saying cut 18-20 y.o off at the knees, but I think more age separation is necessary and beneficial -- not because of any particular isolated incidents, but because of the gap in maturity between, for instance, a 13-14 y.o. and an 18 y.o.

Quote from: DakRadz on June 15, 2010, 02:22:26 AM
Technically, it's 18-20, unless I'm much mistaken. I was under the impression that cadets became seniors on the 21st birthday.

At 21, cadets become former members unless they apply for senior status.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 15, 2010, 04:48:40 PM

Quote from: DakRadz on June 15, 2010, 02:22:26 AM
Technically, it's 18-20, unless I'm much mistaken. I was under the impression that cadets became seniors on the 21st birthday.

At 21, cadets become former members unless they apply for senior status.

Roger. Thanks for the input, I haven't quite mastered the regs yet  ::)

Actually, I do believe it's "Patron" member, not former, as they don't just kick you out.

Quote from: a2capt on June 15, 2010, 05:08:57 PM
Actually, I do believe it's "Patron" member, not former, as they don't just kick you out.

You made me go check regs.  >:(
;)
You were right, as a matter of fact:

Quote from: Causes To Terminate Cadet Membership:
a. Automatic Loss of Membership:
(1) Reaching 21st birthday. National Headquarters will
automatically transfer cadets to senior member patron status when the
cadets reach their 21st birthdays (unless membership expires during
the same month)

CAPR 39-2, Page 11 disagrees...
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R039_002_A74FDA9552C2D.pdf

3-7. Procedures for Cadets Transferring to Senior Status. After reaching age 18, cadets desiring to transfer to senior member status may do so by simply forwarding a CAPF 12 and a FBI fingerprint card to National Headquarters (a copy of the CAPF 12 should also be forwarded to the wing headquarters). The form will be annotated across the top as follows: "Cadet to Senior - No Charge." When the application is received by National Headquarters, the cadet will be transferred to senior member status for the duration of his or her current membership year, after which time the member will be billed as a senior membership renewal.

NOTE 1: If the cadet's membership is due for renewal at approximately the same time the application for senior membership is made (within 2 months), than the applicant should include new senior membership dues with the application to ensure continuous service. (See attachment 1 for actual dues amount required.) In this case, wing dues will be forwarded directly to the wing.

NOTE 2: Cadets who have not transferred to senior member status prior to their 21st birthday, will have their cadet membership terminated and receive a notification letter from National Headquarters along with a CAPF 12 and fingerprint card in the event they wish to continue their CAP affiliation as a senior member.

Since my reference was from a 1981 manual....  :o You're probably right. Yours is a 2004 model.

Once again, the right hand has slapped the left side of the face, and left a mark. What's new?

I do believe the CAPR 35-3 policy as quoted is the current policy being implemented by NHQ.
Note that it is actually part of the 16 March 2010 Change to CAPR 35-3.

One reg conflicts with another? Get otta town!

Regardless, patron or termed, you lose your playground rights, regardless.

Well, we had a cadet recently turn 21 and since they had no intention of continuing on, they did nothing- and the membership turned patron. We didn't do it.

Ah well, it's not like anyone really needs to know, hmm? If you don't plan on continuing, let it die- it doesn't bill you automatically, and you ain't gettin' a refund.

If you (I!) do plan on continuing, just make sure the process is started and the check is mailed, then you don't have to worry about patron/etc.

ECLIPSE: I just realized, that reg says that cadet membership will be terminated, not the whole thing. So perhaps you become a patron is what it means to say? You would have to go through the forms, etc. anyway, so that makes sense now that I think about it.

My brain hurts.

Quote from: DakRadz on June 15, 2010, 07:03:39 PM
ECLIPSE: I just realized, that reg says that cadet membership will be terminated, not the whole thing. So perhaps you become a patron is what it means to say? You would have to go through the forms, etc. anyway, so that makes sense now that I think about it.

If you're a cadet member, cadet membership IS the whole thing. Same with seniors, if they terminate my senior membership, I'm all the way out, not just a patron.

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on June 16, 2010, 03:26:22 PM

Quote from: DakRadz on June 15, 2010, 07:03:39 PM
ECLIPSE: I just realized, that reg says that cadet membership will be terminated, not the whole thing. So perhaps you become a patron is what it means to say? You would have to go through the forms, etc. anyway, so that makes sense now that I think about it.

If you're a cadet member, cadet membership IS the whole thing. Same with seniors, if they terminate my senior membership, I'm all the way out, not just a patron.

Common sense alert!!!

I concede that may be the case. I was more on the train of thought that:
The cadet membership is terminated, reinstated as patron status. NHQ= confusing, regardless.

And see my above post- while you may be right, if a cadet is on top of the process, then they have no need to worry about the daggum nuances.

*grumbles*

Guess I'll have to get Fingerprinted in December so that I don't lapse in February!

P.S. A thought I just had. If someone gets arrested and printed before turning Senior, but not something serious enough to get jail time/terminated, I wonder if there would be be instances when something like that can get you declined for SM status once the check happens?

And no, I haven't been arrested, nor have anything to be concerned about, just a thought. I know Eclipse probably got to thinking at the P.S. point about me. :)

We do the "Conversion to Senior Member" written on the top of the membership form, with finger print card about a month before, if the cadet has indicated they are going to continue. Usually, they do if the are still around at this point.

Quote from: PhoenixCadet on May 29, 2010, 07:30:55 PMNot wanting to keep around Cadets who don't progress is one thing (and IIRC, the 52-16 requires at least two achievements a year to stay in the program)...

Yes, though we must remember: Whether to retain or let go a cadet for failure to progress satisfactorily is entirely up to the commander.

Case in point... I was a cadet for 8 years.  I fast-burned through phases I and II in 2 years, but parked at Phase III where I remained for the rest of my cadet career.  I left as a C/Capt. 

Why?

Because I established myself as a valuable asset to the squadron, and had also served there from 1999 to 2005.  Sure my commander could have let me go... But it would have been detrimental to the squadron, its people, and the unit's commitment to excellence. 

So yes, CAP does have an up-or-out policy for cadets... But like I said, enfocement is entirely at the commander's discretion. 

---

And just for the record, I think 12 is waaay too low of a minimum age for cadet service.  As a guy who wore mosquito wings at 12, I can tell you it would've been better for me to join at 15. 

(And this was under the old 50-16 program, which was IMO a lot tougher than the current one).

Personally, if there is an upper age change... then NHQ is mixed up with their priorities.  They need to change the minimum age, not the maximum.  Sorry y'all, but the age gap in the cadet program is just too darn big.             

or just leave the minimum be because, in part, we will lose people due to the fact that it's a lot harder to recruit them as they get older.

Quote from: CCSE on June 18, 2010, 07:29:54 PMBecause I established myself as a valuable asset to the squadron, and had also served there from 1999 to 2005.  Sure my commander could have let me go... But it would have been detrimental to the squadron, its people, and the unit's commitment to excellence.

Commitment to excellence?

He ignored the very thing the unit is there for, your development, and in the process set a bad example and precedent.

Hardly "excellence"

Quote from: Eclipse on June 19, 2010, 12:27:54 PM

Quote from: CCSE on June 18, 2010, 07:29:54 PMBecause I established myself as a valuable asset to the squadron, and had also served there from 1999 to 2005.  Sure my commander could have let me go... But it would have been detrimental to the squadron, its people, and the unit's commitment to excellence.

Commitment to excellence?

He ignored the very thing the unit is there for, your development, and in the process set a bad example and precedent.

Hardly "excellence"

The USAF defines excellence as;

Quote from: UNITED STATES AIR FORCE CORE VALUES
• Product/service excellence. We must focus on providing services and generating products that
fully respond to customer wants and anticipate customer needs, and we must do so within the
boundaries established by the taxpaying public.
• Personal Excellence. Military professionals must seek out and complete professional military
education, stay in physical and mental shape, and continue to refresh their general educational
backgrounds.
• Community Excellence. Community excellence is achieved when the members of an organization
can work together to successfully reach a common goal in an atmosphere free of fear that
preserves individual self-worth. Some of the factors influencing interpersonal excellence are:
· Mutual respect. Genuine respect involves viewing another person as an individual of
fundamental worth. Obviously, this means that a person is never judged on the basis of
his/her possession of an attribute that places him or her in some racial, ethnic, economic,
or gender-based category.
· Benefit of the doubt. Working hand in glove with mutual respect is that attitude which
says that all coworkers are 'innocent until proven guilty'. Before rushing to judgement
about a person or his/her behavior, it is important to have the whole story.
• Resources excellence. Excellence in all we do also demands that we aggressively implement
policies to ensure the best possible cradle-to-grave management of resources.
· Material resources excellence. Military professionals have an obligation to ensure that
all of the equipment and property they ask for is mission essential. This means that residual
funds at the end of the year should not be used to purchase 'nice to have' add-ons.
· Human resources excellence. Human resources excellencemeans thatwe recruit, train,
promote, and retain those who can do the best job for us.
• Operations excellence. There are two kinds of operations excellence—internal and external.
· Excellence of internal operations. This form of excellence pertains to the way we do
business internal to the Air Force—from the unit level to Headquarters Air Force. It
involves respect on the unit level and a total commitment to maximizing the Air Force
team effort.
· Excellence of external operations. This formof excellence pertains to theway inwhich
we treat the world around us as we conduct our operations. In peacetime, for example,
we must be sensitive to the rules governing environmental pollution, and in wartime we
are required to obey the laws of war.

Leaving out the RM stuff, as long as he abides by something like this, he is the definition of "Excellence."  ;)

Quote from: HGjunkie on June 19, 2010, 05:53:56 PM
Leaving out the RM stuff, as long as he abides by something like this, he is the definition of "Excellence."

Really?

So ignoring a core tenant of the program, personal progression, is "excellence"?  The term you're looking for is "stagnation" and "poor example".  He could be the best C/Capt. ever, but it doesn't matter, because once those pips started getting dusty, the other cadets who
theoretically respected him were being told that progression is no big deal and stagnation is fine, as long as you're "doing something".

Which is not how CAP is supposed to work.

Perhaps you are also unfamiliar with the "Chief experience" as well.

We all have excuses why we don't progress, seniors included, but they are generally just that, excuses, allowed by our commanders who themselves can't be bothered to apply foot to posterior and tell us to get moving.

I can't personally think of a single reason why some staff duty would be "helped" by dying on the vine as a C/Captain, that would not be made better by personal progression.

Enlighten us, please.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 19, 2010, 06:04:55 PM

Quote from: HGjunkie on June 19, 2010, 05:53:56 PM
Leaving out the RM stuff, as long as he abides by something like this, he is the definition of "Excellence."

Really?

So ignoring a core tenant of the program, personal progression, is "excellence"?  The term you're looking for is "stagnation" and "poor example".  He could be the best C/Capt. ever, but it doesn't matter, because once those pips started getting dusty, the other cadets who
theoretically respected him were being told that progression is no big deal and stagnation is fine, as long as you're "doing something".

Which is not how CAP is supposed to work.

Perhaps you are also unfamiliar with the "Chief experience" as well.

We all have excuses why we don't progress, seniors included, but they are generally just that, excuses, allowed by our commanders who themselves can't be bothered to apply foot to posterior and tell us to get moving.

I can't personally think of a single reason why some staff duty would be "helped" by dying on the vine as a C/Captain, that would not be made better by personal progression.

Enlighten us, please.

I just think it's harsh that even though he might be an excellence C/Officer, you think he is a "Poor Example" for other cadets. I saw at my old Sq. someone who had the chief syndrome, and instead if me taking it that it would be okay to not promote, I actually wanted to promote faster so I didn't end up like him. (there's more to that story, but i'm not going to discuss it...). I even have a hard time just finding time to open my Leadership/aerospace texts to study for my next promotion (Although theoretically I could get off CAPTalk and bury my head into a book... ::)). Your opinion of him not progressing in the CP is just your view, and isn't taking into account any other situations he might be dealing with that may be stagnating his promotion. And personal progression, to me, doesnt just include promoting. It also means (to me) gaining experience, learning from past mistakes, and bettering yourself to be a key asset in training, squadron functions, and anything else to do with CAP. So really, I would look up to a cadet who does these things, and embodies the USAF definition of excellence (stated above) as a heck of a good role model, promoting or not.
I do agree that promoting is a part of personal progression, that it is a piece of that pie, but it's not the whole thing.

But then again, what do I know? I'm only a cadet. (http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/cool_shades.gif)

Quote from: HGjunkie on June 19, 2010, 06:21:53 PM
Besides, as long as he encourages the other cadets to promote without sounding like a hypocryte, it's a non-problem.

Yep, the "Do as I say, not as I do" mode of leadership is a real winner and sure to set any unit apart from the rest.

Quote from: Short Field on June 19, 2010, 06:45:31 PM

Quote from: HGjunkie on June 19, 2010, 06:21:53 PM
Besides, as long as he encourages the other cadets to promote without sounding like a hypocryte, it's a non-problem.

Yep, the "Do as I say, not as I do" mode of leadership is a real winner and sure to set any unit apart from the rest.

Like I said, It's just your perspective.

Quote from: HGjunkie on June 19, 2010, 06:50:46 PM
Like I said, It's just your perspective.

Quote from: HGjunkie on June 19, 2010, 06:21:53 PM
But then again, what do I know? I'm only a cadet.

Yep.  Your perspective looking up the chain of command at the C/Capt who failed to advance and my perspective looking down the chain of command at a bad example.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 19, 2010, 12:27:54 PM

Quote from: CCSE on June 18, 2010, 07:29:54 PMBecause I established myself as a valuable asset to the squadron, and had also served there from 1999 to 2005.  Sure my commander could have let me go... But it would have been detrimental to the squadron, its people, and the unit's commitment to excellence.

Commitment to excellence?

He ignored the very thing the unit is there for, your development, and in the process set a bad example and precedent.

Hardly "excellence"

Well Sir, would you like to contact my former SQ/CC and tell her that?  I can give the contact info if you'd like (via PM). 

:)

PM and I will give you my phone number and you can pass it on to him.

Failure to progress is failure to progress and a violation of the cadet oath.

It is the root cause of the eternal chief syndrome we see in some wings.

At my unit if you do not promote in four months...we start giving extra mentoring....if after six months you are not progressing we start banning from activities....es, O-rides, color guard, CAC, etc....so you can focus on promoting.

We do make exceptions to this rule.....college, work, etc.....but as I said they are exceptions. 

I have not problem with explaining my philosophy and the aims of the cadet program to anyone.

Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2010, 04:58:23 AM
PM and I will give you my phone number and you can pass it on to him.

You can conference me on that call as well.

"Life" gets in the way of CAP, that's a known factor and why some cadets never get diamonds, but that doesn't change the scope and nature of CAP, nor the progression requirements.

It's one thing to miss test night because of finals, no issue.

It's a command failing to allow someone to delay or ignore progression because they are doing "other" - because in all cases "other" requires you be a "cadet in good standing", and if you aren't progressing, you're ain't 'dat.

Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2010, 04:58:23 AM
PM and I will give you my phone number and you can pass it on to him.

Will do sir.  Though you can also contact her directly, via Facebook.  She is listed as the SQ/CC on my old squadron's FB group.  I'll give you her name in the PM. 

And also... Please know that I left CAP in 2006, and have no idea how well the 'up-or-out' policy is administered today at the squadron.     

Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2010, 04:58:23 AMFailure to progress is failure to progress and a violation of the cadet oath.

It is the root cause of the eternal chief syndrome we see in some wings.

Understood, though we must remember that C/CMSgt is at about the top 20% of the cadet membership, as a whole.  Mitchell is top 15; Earhart is top 5; Eaker is top 2, and Spaatz is top .1%

Not sure about cadet chiefs... Though I think we can cut the Earhart cadets (and above) a little slack.  Especially those who are full-time students (as I was).   

Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2010, 04:58:23 AMAt my unit if you do not promote in four months...we start giving extra mentoring....if after six months you are not progressing we start banning from activities....es, O-rides, color guard, CAC, etc....so you can focus on promoting.

We do make exceptions to this rule.....college, work, etc.....but as I said they are exceptions.

I understand, and we must always remember that school commitments trump CAP commitments every time.  Though I have to part ways with you regarding school, work, etc. as being exceptions. 

They really aren't.  Every cadet is enrolled in school, and must maintain acceptable grades.  For many, this means focusing more on schoolwork than promoting in CAP.  I was a student at an intense, all-college-prep private school... And as the years progressed, I had less and less time to focus on CAP. 

Many cadets are also full-time employees, and cannot promote satisfactorily for the same basic reason as school; no time available (like there once was).  Now I wasn't employed until after high school, but in the short time remaining in my cadet career... Between college and work there was absolutely no time left for CAP. 

I noticed an odd thing when looking at regulations however... On the one hand, 35-3 lists failure to progress satisfactorily as grounds for membership termination... However the 52-16 says cadets may be 2b'd for failure to progress.

---

Question for National HQ: What's it gonna be sir/ma'am?  Either failure to progress will commute 2b action, or may (but not both).  There's a big difference between "will" and "may", so please make the 52-16 shake hands with the 35-3 as it should have all along.  Thank you!

---

   

Anyway...

One of the major reasons I was not 2b'd for failure to progress, was because I needed more time to focus on school.  This meant not promoting satisfactorily.  Oh well, can't win em' all... But I did graduate high school with a good GPA (and somehow, also college).   

Every unit is different.  As with many things (such as enforcement of the 'up-or-out' policy)... It all comes down to what the SQ/CC directs (in practice, not ideally).  A million different factors are in play with this issue, and compromise is sometimes the best option for everyone.   

Take the satisfactory grades requirement, for example... Neither the 52-16 or 35-3 specify a set GPA... It is for the commander to decide (although it's typically set as at or above 2.0).

Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2010, 04:58:23 AMI have not problem with explaining my philosophy and the aims of the cadet program to anyone.

Bravo Zulu sir; I wish every commander was like that.  And I wish the regulations were more clear, and non-contradicting (as with the example above).  May never happen... But hey we can dream, can't we?   

^ You can't make things up as you go along, you asserted above that your non-progression was due to you being such an important cog in the unit that you had no time for your own CAP career, probably #1 on the hit parade of excuses, especially for senior members.

Now you say it was because of school. 

Whatever - bottom line is that is you continued to participate in "other" in CAP, while at the same time stagnating in your progression, with the "excuse" of being busy with school, you did it wrong, and your commander failed you.

The number one thing cadets should be worried about is their personal progression and growth, that is why they are in CAP, all else is secondary.  Seniors are a different story.

Put this in another perspective - how long would you be allowed to stay in college is you suddenly stopped going to class regularly and your grades dropped because your duties as an RA and mentor were taking too much time?

When commanders fail to impose the proper prospective on cadets, they fail, both figuratively and actually.

Well, here's what happened:

Yes, I was a big asset to the unit... but moreover swamped with schoolwork, which only increased in volume as the years progressed.  Something had to give, and without an effective compromise I would've had to quit CAP altogether (which I didn't want to do).     

Schoolwork was the reason for my failure to progress satisfactorily, however my status as a squadron force-multiplier was the justification for suspending 'up-or-out'.  And I wasn't the only one... We had a few cadet officers in the same position as me (especially the ones in college).       

Sorry I didn't make that clear earlier.

---

Bottom Line: This is nothing to get hung up on; There are bigger, badder issues to pursue.

(And lets not forget... Most cadets quit before making Mitchell.  As stated earlier... Let's give the Earhart folks a little slack and be happy they made it that far).   

In 35-3 the part you cite is a list of acceptable reasons to 2b someone. 

You don't have to do it.  But they are there if you need it.

WRT Cadet Programs 52-16 is the Regulation you need to worry about.
That said I see no discrepancy between the two regs.


Your DCC thought it was acceptable to keep you around without you progressing.  Fine.  Their call, and no one is going to armchair quarterback their decision, as no one knows for certain the circumstances.

In my squadron I keep an eye on progression very closely.  ESPECIALLY with the c/officers.  Those seem to be the ones that need the biggest kick in the butt to keep going.  Though you have to ask, often, if they are being overloaded and that's why they're not testing or working toward their next achievement.  This is usually fixed by removing them from their over tasked position or sitting down one-on-one and developing a plan!  You'll be surprised how much free time a cadet has if they're about to lose their job in the squadron or you sit down and detail a workable plan around their schedule.

And you have a lot to say about the program since you left in '06.  Still can't find time to commit? 
Time to "Join up or get off the pot" as they say (or something like that)...

Quote from: tsrup on June 21, 2010, 11:06:39 PMWRT Cadet Programs 52-16 is the Regulation you need to worry about.
That said I see no discrepancy between the two regs.

Quote from: CCSEI noticed an odd thing when looking at regulations however... On the one hand, 35-3 lists failure to progress satisfactorily as grounds for membership termination... However the 52-16 says cadets may be 2b'd for failure to progress.

---

Question for National HQ: What's it gonna be sir/ma'am?  Either failure to progress will commute 2b action, or may (but not both).  There's a big difference between "will" and "may", so please make the 52-16 shake hands with the 35-3 as it should have all along.  Thank you!

That's the discrepancy.  One is binding; the other selective ("may" = up to the commander).

Quote from: tsrup on June 21, 2010, 11:06:39 PMYour DCC thought it was acceptable to keep you around without you progressing.  Fine.  Their call, and no one is going to armchair quarterback their decision, as no one knows for certain the circumstances.

Actually, it was the DCC with the blessing of the SQ/CC.  The circumstances?  My high marks of success in high school --and CAP-- more than made up for not progressing rapidly.  School comes first; I'm sure most here would agree.

Also,

Quote from: CAP Cadet Oathand advance my education and training rapidly, to prepare myself to be of service to my community, state and nation.

That's not just CAP; it's high school, college, vocational training, on-the-job training, etc.  Often these commitments conflict with CAP, and that's just the nature of the beast I'm afraid.   

Quote from: tsrup on June 21, 2010, 11:06:39 PMIn my squadron I keep an eye on progression very closely.  ESPECIALLY with the c/officers.  Those seem to be the ones that need the biggest kick in the butt to keep going.

But how many of them are more intently focused on school?  Would you rather have a cadet officer miss out on getting into a good college, because he/she spent too much time studying for promotion exams?

And how about active participation?  (I'm talking above and beyond... Not just SQ meetings and the occasional weekend activity).     

Quote from: tsrup on June 21, 2010, 11:06:39 PMThough you have to ask, often, if they are being overloaded and that's why they're not testing or working toward their next achievement.

Bingo; no argument here sir.   

Quote from: tsrup on June 21, 2010, 11:06:39 PMThis is usually fixed by removing them from their over tasked position or sitting down one-on-one and developing a plan!

Yes, but that could be problematic for the unit.  Let's say a cadet major is the only c/officer in the SQ, and he's not promoting... However there are 15 cadets below him, and all are in Phase I.  Said C/Maj is stressed out and can't fast-burn like he used to in Phases I and II... And there's no one else qualified to be C/CC.

Should he be let go?

Now the latter option is (imo) more appropriate... But we should remember that CAP is not a full-time commitment, and people should have lives outside of CAP. 

Also, there is no 'up-or-out' policy for the same senior member considering 2b action on a cadet.  I find this irritating, but that's just me.               

Quote from: tsrup on June 21, 2010, 11:06:39 PMYou'll be surprised how much free time a cadet has if they're about to lose their job in the squadron or you sit down and detail a workable plan around their schedule.

As said before, depends on the commander.  You said it well sir: it's their call. 

The 'up-or-out' policy is more selectively enforced than most people think.  And it is certainly not as binding as the one the real Air Force uses (which makes more sense, in my opinion).         

Quote from: tsrup on June 21, 2010, 11:06:39 PMAnd you have a lot to say about the program since you left in '06.  Still can't find time to commit? 
Time to "Join up or get off the pot" as they say (or something like that)...

Well hey, I was in for 8 years and made it to CAC Group Rep.  I staffed 3 encampments, earned 2 Commanders Commendations and received the Search/Find Medal. 

But hey, what do I know?     :-\

Quote from: CCSE on June 22, 2010, 12:26:04 AM

Quote from: tsrup on June 21, 2010, 11:06:39 PMWRT Cadet Programs 52-16 is the Regulation you need to worry about.
That said I see no discrepancy between the two regs.

Quote from: CCSEI noticed an odd thing when looking at regulations however... On the one hand, 35-3 lists failure to progress satisfactorily as grounds for membership termination... However the 52-16 says cadets may be 2b'd for failure to progress.

---

Question for National HQ: What's it gonna be sir/ma'am?  Either failure to progress will commute 2b action, or may (but not both).  There's a big difference between "will" and "may", so please make the 52-16 shake hands with the 35-3 as it should have all along.  Thank you!

That's the discrepancy.  One is binding; the other selective ("may" = up to the commander).

Quote from: tsrup on June 21, 2010, 11:06:39 PMYour DCC thought it was acceptable to keep you around without you progressing.  Fine.  Their call, and no one is going to armchair quarterback their decision, as no one knows for certain the circumstances.

Actually, it was the DCC with the blessing of the SQ/CC.  The circumstances?  My high marks of success in high school --and CAP-- more than made up for not progressing rapidly.  School comes first; I'm sure most here would agree.

Also,

Quote from: CAP Cadet Oathand advance my education and training rapidly, to prepare myself to be of service to my community, state and nation.

That's not just CAP; it's high school, college, vocational training, on-the-job training, etc.  Often these commitments conflict with CAP, and that's just the nature of the beast I'm afraid.   

Quote from: tsrup on June 21, 2010, 11:06:39 PMIn my squadron I keep an eye on progression very closely.  ESPECIALLY with the c/officers.  Those seem to be the ones that need the biggest kick in the butt to keep going.

But how many of them are more intently focused on school?  Would you rather have a cadet officer miss out on getting into a good college, because he/she spent too much time studying for promotion exams?

And how about active participation?  (I'm talking above and beyond... Not just SQ meetings and the occasional weekend activity).     

Quote from: tsrup on June 21, 2010, 11:06:39 PMThough you have to ask, often, if they are being overloaded and that's why they're not testing or working toward their next achievement.

Bingo; no argument here sir.   

Quote from: tsrup on June 21, 2010, 11:06:39 PMThis is usually fixed by removing them from their over tasked position or sitting down one-on-one and developing a plan!

Yes, but that could be problematic for the unit.  Let's say a cadet major is the only c/officer in the SQ, and he's not promoting... However there are 15 cadets below him, and all are in Phase I.  Said C/Maj is stressed out and can't fast-burn like he used to in Phases I and II... And there's no one else qualified to be C/CC.

Should he be let go?

Now the latter option is (imo) more appropriate... But we should remember that CAP is not a full-time commitment, and people should have lives outside of CAP. 

Also, there is no 'up-or-out' policy for the same senior member considering 2b action on a cadet.  I find this irritating, but that's just me.               

Quote from: tsrup on June 21, 2010, 11:06:39 PMYou'll be surprised how much free time a cadet has if they're about to lose their job in the squadron or you sit down and detail a workable plan around their schedule.

As said before, depends on the commander.  You said it well sir: it's their call. 

The 'up-or-out' policy is more selectively enforced than most people think.  And it is certainly not as binding as the one the real Air Force uses (which makes more sense, in my opinion).         

Quote from: tsrup on June 21, 2010, 11:06:39 PMAnd you have a lot to say about the program since you left in '06.  Still can't find time to commit? 
Time to "Join up or get off the pot" as they say (or something like that)...

Well hey, I was in for 8 years and made it to CAC Group Rep.  I staffed 3 encampments, earned 2 Commanders Commendations and received the Search/Find Medal. 

But hey, what do I know?     :-\

I'm on your side. Eclipse needs to get his head out of his little CAP bubble and needs to realize there is more to life that just CAP. Like you said, with schoolwork and other commitments it is very hard to keep progressing. I should know, I'm in CAP as a Flight Sgt., in Boy Scouts as my troop QM, and about to enter high school in the IB program. CAP is tough enough as it is, but to get booted out because of non-progression is just plain stupid, especially if you are a valuable asset to the SQ.

QuoteAlso, there is no 'up-or-out' policy for the same senior member considering 2b action on a cadet.  I find this irritating, but that's just me.               

Seriously. In my old Sq. there was an OLD captain who joined CAP as a cadet and has been in for 50+ years (I think).

Senior Members are a whole 'nother ballgame on the up-or-out policy.

Some senior members don't care about the recognition, or don't feel right wearing the same insignia and receiving the title of a RM person, so they stay SMWOG. Others have BTDT, and are pretty much just happy to be a SM, because grade doesn't really affect what jobs you can do.

Right now we have a SMWOG on either the National Board or the BOG, can't remember. The reason he doesn't care about earning rank in CAP? He's a retired 3 star, USAF.

Cadets are supposed to progress, because certain jobs are  only supposed to be filled by certain ranks. Case in point- I'm the highest ranking cadet in my squadron because it's new. The only reason I'm a C/Chief is because of my JROTC; otherwise I'd be a Staffie or Techie right now.
I'm working towards earning my Mitchell because we were told the C/CC should be an officer, at least. So there is a push for me to progress, which I welcome.
Point- cadets should progress at a reasonable for their situation pace, so that they can advance in duties and responsibilities.

^ Seniors who don't progress, or more specifically don't participate in PD, are generally less informed or have decided to be "specialists"
(i.e. "I only do this, don't bother me with anything not fun...") and are generally not as effective as members who fully participate in the program.

Bottom line - its a program for all, not a menu of activities to pick and choose from while leaving all the heavy-lifting to "the other guy".

Quote from: Eclipse on June 26, 2010, 07:07:14 PM
^ Seniors who don't progress, or more specifically don't participate in PD, are generally less informed or have decided to be "specialists"
(i.e. "I only do this, don't bother me with anything not fun...") and are generally not as effective as members who fully participate in the program.

Bottom line - its a program for all, not a menu of activities to pick and choose from while leaving all the heavy-lifting to "the other guy".

You know, I feel bad about disagreeing with Eclipse on this one. The reason is, I don't feel he lives in a "CAP bubble" where all of one's life must revolve around CAP.

No one is saying your life has to revolve around CAP. But the reality is, cadets are tasked with progressing. That's it.

Now, I am seeing a lot of ambiguities being thrown around here as absolutes. There is a difference from failing to progress and "not progressing as quickly as we think you should." The former can be a sign of complacency, while the latter might be a sign that the cadet is bringing in some kick-butt grades at school and generally doing other stuff outside of CAP.

Fine.

My problem with Eclipse's statement is that, while the program for cadets is pretty rigid and the duty of all cadets is to advance, senior members are in a different boat. We are (generally) still in the workforce. We have jobs, families and responsibilities. We can commit to CAP, but that commitment is not without bounds.

We have many CAP Officers who "specialize." Is this a bad thing? What about the commercial airline pilot who volunteers to do O-flights? Should we say to that guy "Hey! Unless you one day want to be a Commander, take your wings and go fly a kite?" Or should we simply say "Hey, here's a guy who can only commit a few hours a week to our organization, let's be thankful for what he brings to the table?" I choose the latter.

I will say that people do tend to take specialization too far. They are the pilots who come in as First Lieutenants and never advance because they don't want to be bothered completing Level II. They are the radio guys who don't want to sit through a course that does not directly relate to radios. Those members are really only taking part in a small portion of the organization.

But is a senior member "not as effective" if they tend to work with only seniors? Or only cadets?

The fact is we, as adults, cannot help but specializing somewhat. We have entire paths open to such specialists who are exempt from many training requirements (Chaplains for example). But, you can take it to far and limit yourself to such a narrow scope that you are not as effective as you could be.

I will add that I understand some of the early posters in their concern with the upper age limit for cadets. It has nothing to do with being "fair" to older teens (who are constantly being oppressed by the evil powers that be, I know). It has everything to do with maintaining the integrity of the cadet program.

Let's say I have a 12 year old kid who wants to be a cadet. I take a walk around the squadron having never set foot in a CAP Meeting before. There are two things going through my mind:

1) There are some really old "cadets" here. What kind of kid's program has kids from 12 to 20?

2) The 18 year old is going to be in charge with no "adult" supervision? We're outta here!

The first problem deals with the "problem" of older cadets. The latter deals with the "problem" of an 18-21 year old senior member.

But that's just me. When I was a boy scout, the scoutmasters left us completely in the care of the older kids (16-19) and they did some pretty not nice stuff to us. Considering I wasn't the only kid in that troop, I can't imagine I'm the only one with such hangups.

Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 01:52:54 AM
et's say I have a 12 year old kid who wants to be a cadet. I take a walk around the squadron having never set foot in a CAP Meeting before. There are two things going through my mind:

1) There are some really old "cadets" here. What kind of kid's program has kids from 12 to 20?

That's easy.  You have an incorrect assumption gumming up your question.

CAP's cadet program is most decidedly not a "kids program." 

Never has been.  Our successful cadet program is a leadership training program for people in the 12 - 20 age range.  By a remarkable coincidence, ROTC/JROTC has a similar age range, as do several other youth programs.

Quote2) The 18 year old is going to be in charge with no "adult" supervision? We're outta here!

While a unit with only 18 year old seniors is a theoretical possiblity, I don't think there is a single unit in CAP that has only 18 year old seniors.  As a practical matter, this is a non-issue. 

But qualified seniors can be fairly young.

Just like Scout leaders, church group supervisors, or even school teachers.

What was your point?

QuoteBut that's just me. When I was a boy scout, the scoutmasters left us completely in the care of the older kids (16-19) and they did some pretty not nice stuff to us. Considering I wasn't the only kid in that troop, I can't imagine I'm the only one with such hangups.

I'm sorry your Scouting experience was disappointing.

But don't tar us with the same brush.

Good luck with your hangups.

Ned Lee
National CP guy

Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 01:52:54 AMMy problem with Eclipse's statement is that, while the program for cadets is pretty rigid and the duty of all cadets is to advance, senior members are in a different boat. We are (generally) still in the workforce. We have jobs, families and responsibilities. We can commit to CAP, but that commitment is not without bounds.

We have many CAP Officers who "specialize." Is this a bad thing? What about the commercial airline pilot who volunteers to do O-flights? Should we say to that guy "Hey! Unless you one day want to be a Commander, take your wings and go fly a kite?" Or should we simply say "Hey, here's a guy who can only commit a few hours a week to our organization, let's be thankful for what he brings to the table?" I choose the latter.

The fact that you choose the latter is the issue.

Want to fly?  Great.  You also need to help us raise some funds to keep the lights on, or train some people, or make sure you understand all the rules and regs and why we do, or do not have an airplane, etc.

I have no issues with people who join "just to do x", however the payment for your fun, whatever that means, is some recognition and effort that anything which isn't "x" isn't somehow always "the other dudes' problem..."

And no, "just taking time from my family / work / hobbies / Desperate Housewives..." is not "enough", because we're all doing that.

In most cases, CAP members volunteer their time and talents in things they would likely be doing anyway, because they want to help their community, serve their country, and play with some expensive big-boy toys.  That comes at a price, and we can't be so enamored over the idea that people will just show up that we allow them to play without the effort needed to keep things running.

And that doesn't mean an occasional half-effort to "...check a few boxes so those admin dweebs will get off my case and I can get back to flying..." it means getting educated, trained, and participating enough to help relieve the administrative burden of not only check boxes but plans and programs, so the staff and commander can, occasionally, do the thing they joined for as well.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 04, 2010, 08:24:54 AM

Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 01:52:54 AMMy problem with Eclipse's statement is that, while the program for cadets is pretty rigid and the duty of all cadets is to advance, senior members are in a different boat. We are (generally) still in the workforce. We have jobs, families and responsibilities. We can commit to CAP, but that commitment is not without bounds.

We have many CAP Officers who "specialize." Is this a bad thing? What about the commercial airline pilot who volunteers to do O-flights? Should we say to that guy "Hey! Unless you one day want to be a Commander, take your wings and go fly a kite?" Or should we simply say "Hey, here's a guy who can only commit a few hours a week to our organization, let's be thankful for what he brings to the table?" I choose the latter.

The fact that you choose the latter is the issue.

Want to fly?  Great.  You also need to help us raise some funds to keep the lights on, or train some people, or make sure you understand all the rules and regs and why we do, or do not have an airplane, etc.

I have no issues with people who join "just to do x", however the payment for your fun, whatever that means, is some recognition and effort that anything which isn't "x" isn't somehow always "the other dudes' problem..."

And no, "just taking time from my family / work / hobbies / Desperate Housewives..." is not "enough", because we're all doing that.

In most cases, CAP members volunteer their time and talents in things they would likely be doing anyway, because they want to help their community, serve their country, and play with some expensive big-boy toys.  That comes at a price, and we can't be so enamored over the idea that people will just show up that we allow them to play without the effort needed to keep things running.

And that doesn't mean an occasional half-effort to "...check a few boxes so those admin dweebs will get off my case and I can get back to flying..." it means getting educated, trained, and participating enough to help relieve the administrative burden of not only check boxes but plans and programs, so the staff and commander can, occasionally, do the thing they joined for as well.

I'm just saying that a person who, say, "only wants to fly" and flies quite often is providing a unique contribution.

Let's say each CAP member in a squadron is going to dedicate 5 hours per week to CAP. Just for example.

If you have a pilot who only flies and otherwise deals with the aircraft for five hours per week, why isn't that OK?

The reality is we have many more non-pilots who can be doing the bulk of fundraising.

I'm not a pilot, so, I focus on training, recruiting and all of that other stuff.

But a pilot who comes and flies every weekend for CAP is dedicating the same amount of time, it would be unfair of us to say "Great! Now go work the air show and get us some new recruits, slacker."

Is a Chaplain doing something wrong for only being a Chaplain when, per regulation, they could also serve as, say, an AE Officer?

Is a Legal Officer doing something wrong because they are "only" a Legal Officer and don't take part in ES?

I have not seen individuals refusing to learn rules and regulations just because they only want to concentrate their efforts.

My problem with this whole line of discussion is that your position reminds me of those from the RM who insist if you don't do "X" then you are not really serving. And that is a slippery slope.

If every pilot who "just wanted to fly" walked away from CAP right now, we'd be pretty funny being the Civil "Air" Patrol without any "Air" involvement.

Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 03:14:17 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on July 04, 2010, 08:24:54 AM

Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 01:52:54 AMMy problem with Eclipse's statement is that, while the program for cadets is pretty rigid and the duty of all cadets is to advance, senior members are in a different boat. We are (generally) still in the workforce. We have jobs, families and responsibilities. We can commit to CAP, but that commitment is not without bounds.

We have many CAP Officers who "specialize." Is this a bad thing? What about the commercial airline pilot who volunteers to do O-flights? Should we say to that guy "Hey! Unless you one day want to be a Commander, take your wings and go fly a kite?" Or should we simply say "Hey, here's a guy who can only commit a few hours a week to our organization, let's be thankful for what he brings to the table?" I choose the latter.

The fact that you choose the latter is the issue.

Want to fly?  Great.  You also need to help us raise some funds to keep the lights on, or train some people, or make sure you understand all the rules and regs and why we do, or do not have an airplane, etc.

I have no issues with people who join "just to do x", however the payment for your fun, whatever that means, is some recognition and effort that anything which isn't "x" isn't somehow always "the other dudes' problem..."

And no, "just taking time from my family / work / hobbies / Desperate Housewives..." is not "enough", because we're all doing that.

In most cases, CAP members volunteer their time and talents in things they would likely be doing anyway, because they want to help their community, serve their country, and play with some expensive big-boy toys.  That comes at a price, and we can't be so enamored over the idea that people will just show up that we allow them to play without the effort needed to keep things running.

And that doesn't mean an occasional half-effort to "...check a few boxes so those admin dweebs will get off my case and I can get back to flying..." it means getting educated, trained, and participating enough to help relieve the administrative burden of not only check boxes but plans and programs, so the staff and commander can, occasionally, do the thing they joined for as well.

I'm just saying that a person who, say, "only wants to fly" and flies quite often is providing a unique contribution.

Let's say each CAP member in a squadron is going to dedicate 5 hours per week to CAP. Just for example.

If you have a pilot who only flies and otherwise deals with the aircraft for five hours per week, why isn't that OK?

The reality is we have many more non-pilots who can be doing the bulk of fundraising.

I'm not a pilot, so, I focus on training, recruiting and all of that other stuff.

But a pilot who comes and flies every weekend for CAP is dedicating the same amount of time, it would be unfair of us to say "Great! Now go work the air show and get us some new recruits, slacker."

Is a Chaplain doing something wrong for only being a Chaplain when, per regulation, they could also serve as, say, an AE Officer?

Is a Legal Officer doing something wrong because they are "only" a Legal Officer and don't take part in ES?

I have not seen individuals refusing to learn rules and regulations just because they only want to concentrate their efforts.

My problem with this whole line of discussion is that your position reminds me of those from the RM who insist if you don't do "X" then you are not really serving. And that is a slippery slope.

If every pilot who "just wanted to fly" walked away from CAP right now, we'd be pretty funny being the Civil "Air" Patrol without any "Air" involvement.

Why should I subsidize his flying through my efforts at keeping the unit running when I would rather be outside playing in the woods? To only fly and not contribute to the upkeep of the unit in some fashion is selfish. If I was a CC with people like that they would not get to do squat until they pull their weight.

Quote from: davidsinn on July 04, 2010, 03:24:22 PM

Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 03:14:17 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on July 04, 2010, 08:24:54 AM

Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 01:52:54 AMMy problem with Eclipse's statement is that, while the program for cadets is pretty rigid and the duty of all cadets is to advance, senior members are in a different boat. We are (generally) still in the workforce. We have jobs, families and responsibilities. We can commit to CAP, but that commitment is not without bounds.

We have many CAP Officers who "specialize." Is this a bad thing? What about the commercial airline pilot who volunteers to do O-flights? Should we say to that guy "Hey! Unless you one day want to be a Commander, take your wings and go fly a kite?" Or should we simply say "Hey, here's a guy who can only commit a few hours a week to our organization, let's be thankful for what he brings to the table?" I choose the latter.

The fact that you choose the latter is the issue.

Want to fly?  Great.  You also need to help us raise some funds to keep the lights on, or train some people, or make sure you understand all the rules and regs and why we do, or do not have an airplane, etc.

I have no issues with people who join "just to do x", however the payment for your fun, whatever that means, is some recognition and effort that anything which isn't "x" isn't somehow always "the other dudes' problem..."

And no, "just taking time from my family / work / hobbies / Desperate Housewives..." is not "enough", because we're all doing that.

In most cases, CAP members volunteer their time and talents in things they would likely be doing anyway, because they want to help their community, serve their country, and play with some expensive big-boy toys.  That comes at a price, and we can't be so enamored over the idea that people will just show up that we allow them to play without the effort needed to keep things running.

And that doesn't mean an occasional half-effort to "...check a few boxes so those admin dweebs will get off my case and I can get back to flying..." it means getting educated, trained, and participating enough to help relieve the administrative burden of not only check boxes but plans and programs, so the staff and commander can, occasionally, do the thing they joined for as well.

I'm just saying that a person who, say, "only wants to fly" and flies quite often is providing a unique contribution.

Let's say each CAP member in a squadron is going to dedicate 5 hours per week to CAP. Just for example.

If you have a pilot who only flies and otherwise deals with the aircraft for five hours per week, why isn't that OK?

The reality is we have many more non-pilots who can be doing the bulk of fundraising.

I'm not a pilot, so, I focus on training, recruiting and all of that other stuff.

But a pilot who comes and flies every weekend for CAP is dedicating the same amount of time, it would be unfair of us to say "Great! Now go work the air show and get us some new recruits, slacker."

Is a Chaplain doing something wrong for only being a Chaplain when, per regulation, they could also serve as, say, an AE Officer?

Is a Legal Officer doing something wrong because they are "only" a Legal Officer and don't take part in ES?

I have not seen individuals refusing to learn rules and regulations just because they only want to concentrate their efforts.

My problem with this whole line of discussion is that your position reminds me of those from the RM who insist if you don't do "X" then you are not really serving. And that is a slippery slope.

If every pilot who "just wanted to fly" walked away from CAP right now, we'd be pretty funny being the Civil "Air" Patrol without any "Air" involvement.

Why should I subsidize his flying through my efforts at keeping the unit running when I would rather be outside playing in the woods? To only fly and not contribute to the upkeep of the unit in some fashion is selfish. If I was a CC with people like that they would not get to do squat until they pull their weight.

You are NOT "subsidizing their flying" they are flying because they want to help CAP. Their flying IS pulling their weight.

Do you think a commercial airline pilot who donates flying time is only participating because he wants "free flying" and this is all an elaborate scam?

Tell your cadets that they can't have an O-flight because you require your pilots to do more than other members. After all, to be fair, you have to treat them differently. See how successful your program is.

Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 03:37:23 PM

Quote from: davidsinn on July 04, 2010, 03:24:22 PM

Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 03:14:17 PM


I'm just saying that a person who, say, "only wants to fly" and flies quite often is providing a unique contribution.

Let's say each CAP member in a squadron is going to dedicate 5 hours per week to CAP. Just for example.

If you have a pilot who only flies and otherwise deals with the aircraft for five hours per week, why isn't that OK?

The reality is we have many more non-pilots who can be doing the bulk of fundraising.

I'm not a pilot, so, I focus on training, recruiting and all of that other stuff.

But a pilot who comes and flies every weekend for CAP is dedicating the same amount of time, it would be unfair of us to say "Great! Now go work the air show and get us some new recruits, slacker."

Is a Chaplain doing something wrong for only being a Chaplain when, per regulation, they could also serve as, say, an AE Officer?

Is a Legal Officer doing something wrong because they are "only" a Legal Officer and don't take part in ES?

I have not seen individuals refusing to learn rules and regulations just because they only want to concentrate their efforts.

My problem with this whole line of discussion is that your position reminds me of those from the RM who insist if you don't do "X" then you are not really serving. And that is a slippery slope.

If every pilot who "just wanted to fly" walked away from CAP right now, we'd be pretty funny being the Civil "Air" Patrol without any "Air" involvement.

Why should I subsidize his flying through my efforts at keeping the unit running when I would rather be outside playing in the woods? To only fly and not contribute to the upkeep of the unit in some fashion is selfish. If I was a CC with people like that they would not get to do squat until they pull their weight.

You are NOT "subsidizing their flying" they are flying because they want to help CAP. Their flying IS pulling their weight.

Do you think a commercial airline pilot who donates flying time is only participating because he wants "free flying" and this is all an elaborate scam?

Tell your cadets that they can't have an O-flight because you require your pilots to do more than other members. After all, to be fair, you have to treat them differently. See how successful your program is.

I didn't say I'd make them do more than any other member but I would make them do more than just fly. Do you have any idea how much work goes on behind the scenes to allow a unit to function? How about the reports and paperwork that an aircraft involves? I joined four years ago to be aircrew. I have yet to fly because I'm too busy doing what needs to be done.

Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 03:14:17 PM
If every pilot who "just wanted to fly" walked away from CAP right now, we'd be pretty funny being the Civil "Air" Patrol without any "Air" involvement.

You might be surprised at the number of new pilots who would join to replace them if they could get some of the free flying hours for themselves. 

"I didn't say I'd make them do more than any other member but I would make them do more than just fly. Do you have any idea how much work goes on behind the scenes to allow a unit to function? How about the reports and paperwork that an aircraft involves? I joined four years ago to be aircrew. I have yet to fly because I'm too busy doing what needs to be done."

I can relate to that.  I have a pilot's license and I came back into CAP in 1993 wanting to fly.  I can count the number of times I been up on one hand.  Admittedly, it's probably because I've been involved in other CAP activities.  But I would still like to get air crew qualified sometime.  Maybe this will be the year.

Quote from: Short Field on July 04, 2010, 07:51:19 PM

Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 03:14:17 PM
If every pilot who "just wanted to fly" walked away from CAP right now, we'd be pretty funny being the Civil "Air" Patrol without any "Air" involvement.

You might be surprised at the number of new pilots who would join to replace them if they could get some of the free flying hours for themselves.

No I wouldn't. I WAS surprised at the number of pilots who came, offered to fly and then ultimately decided against joining because they just wanted to fly and didn't want to organize fundraisers, visit schools for recruiting purposes and the like.

A good friend of mine approached a squadron out of state and was told that he likely wouldn't even see the aircraft until he was nearing his first renewal, because there was just so much other stuff he had to do before he could even start on his journey toward the cockpit.

He was even willing to play ball with the PD, with the other stuff that we expect of officers. But he was not interested in waiting around a whole year before he even approached the aircraft. The result? The squadron missed out on a very dedicated CFI who likely would have served them well.

The point I'm trying to make is this, we need pilots much more than pilots need us. To think otherwise is naive, at best.

EDIT: I realize this is an extreme, one year without even being permitted to get AC qualified. But, it was a squadron of non-pilots who built their program around everything other than being a pilot. So, that's what you get.