The Air Force utilizes flights some instances within a squadron, such as security police, sometimes communications, and even medical.
Wondering IF CAP organizationally wise should consider allowing "specialty" flights for senior members ??? As an example if there's at least 6 pilots there could be a flight operations flight, 6 communicators, a communications flight. Maybe even an emergency services flight. This would give senior members who have NO desire to do anything else in CAP other than as examples fly, communicate, or ES, to have separate meetings but meet once a month at a general commander's call with the unit as a whole.
Right now even the material in CAP level 1 talks about letting members decide what they want to do, so this would ensure we keep those that want to specialize in certain disciplines focused on that discipline.
RM
No, it would encourage wanna bees.
Quote from: EMT-83 on March 26, 2012, 01:03:42 AM
No, it would encourage wanna bees.
And would have even more people that just come to do the one thing they enjoy without contributing to the greater effort.
I think its an interesting concept, but I would have to agree with davidsinn, it is possible that it would thin the ranks of the composite squadrons so that they could not opperate properly.
Quote from: EMT-83 on March 26, 2012, 01:03:42 AM
No, it would encourage wanna bees.
That's not nice.. :( This is a very serious organizational question. I think IF we allowed this we could recruit & retain more adult members. Even in our facility we really don't have enough space to train everyone on a meeting night and there's so much going on it's difficult to train adults. It would seem since Composite Squadrons already have that mission anyways to train both cadets & seniors, why not allow "specialization", especially in any of the operational specialties. IF we want to follow the AF's lead, pilots are pilots as duty title, they are not all Assistant Operations Officers.
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on March 26, 2012, 01:10:14 AM
Quote from: EMT-83 on March 26, 2012, 01:03:42 AM
No, it would encourage wanna bees.
That's not nice.. :( This is a very serious organizational question. I think IF we allowed this we could recruit & retain more adult members. Even in our facility we really don't have enough space to train everyone on a meeting night and there's so much going on it's difficult to train adults. It would seem since Composite Squadrons already have that mission anyways to train both cadets & seniors, why not allow "specialization", especially in any of the operational specialties. IF we want to follow the AF's lead, pilots are pilots as duty title, they are not all Assistant Operations Officers.
RM
We don't need more members that can't be counted on and that don't pull their weight. I want well rounded members in my unit that help out all around not just the thing they like.
That's true but what about the smaller squadrons, for example if you have lost most fo your SM's to the specialty flights and, in an extreme case, you only have the squadron comander left that comes to meeting with cadets, and if there are not enough senior cadets in the squadron then the comander would quickly become overwelmed, additionally, I have a feeling the comander would have a difficult time recallind SM's from the specialty flights because the are doing what they like to do there and they would most likely make their plans around going only to specialty flight meetings.
CAPR 20-3 discourages naming units with names like "Rescue", "Communications", etc. This leads me to believe that having specialty units themselves is also discouraged.
Quote from: SarDragon on March 26, 2012, 04:44:32 AM
CAPR 20-3 discourages naming units with names like "Rescue", "Communications", etc. This leads me to believe that having specialty units themselves is also discouraged.
I would agree with that.
Also, having been in a
flying club senior squadron where the only thing that mattered was the airplane, the airplane and the airplane...I could see such a flight easily going that way.
Yes, RM, we do have the three different types of squadrons (though sometimes I'm hard pressed to tell the difference between composite and cadet squadrons), but those are largely based on age, rather than operational preference.
I think your intentions are honourable here but I don't think the dedicated flight type of thing would work, simply because of numbers, and maybe a sense of cliquishness/elitism that may arise: "I'm a member of the GT flight, get thee hence," or like what I experienced in the senior squadron.
Well, look at it a different way - CAP does not prohibit a member or group of members from doing what RM suggested. If an aircrew of three people want to get together and practice on the weekend so they are good together, what's the problem with that? If they want to only fly airplanes in the Civil AIR Patrol, what's the problem with that?
There is no regulation that says you have to support the whole mission. Some people come for just one thing.
Quote from: bflynn on March 26, 2012, 11:27:29 AM
There is no regulation that says you have to support the whole mission. Some people come for just one thing.
This is true. And, there are squadrons and flights which concentrate on one aspect of our mission. However, it has been my experience, these units are of limited value to CAP. They tend not to keep current, end up keeping to themselves and, end up as a detriment to the organization.
Yes, but the original example was not about an entire squadron or wing. It was about individuals or subgroups within a squadron. If they focus on flying, will they be out of date with regards to cadet DDR status? Sure, but why would this matter? They (we) are civilian volunteers, so the amount you can require someone to do is limited, it isn't much beyond what they want to do in the first place.
It seems to me that you'd want to encourage volunteers to do things that bring energy, not require them to do things that grind them down.
You are describing a Senior Squadron, for the most part. They are already ES related and you will usually find them focusing either on flying or ground team.
Quote from: bflynn on March 26, 2012, 11:49:58 AM
Yes, but the original example was not about an entire squadron or wing. It was about individuals or subgroups within a squadron. If they focus on flying, will they be out of date with regards to cadet DDR status? Sure, but why would this matter? They (we) are civilian volunteers, so the amount you can require someone to do is limited, it isn't much beyond what they want to do in the first place.
It seems to me that you'd want to encourage volunteers to do things that bring energy, not require them to do things that grind them down.
At the end of the day, a composite squadron must accomplish all three missions. A senior squadron still must accomplish AE and ES. Just because we're "all volunteers" doesn't mean we get to do whatever the heck we want all the time - the unit as a whole still has mission mandates, suspense dates, and other regulatory requirements and somebody has to do it (and no, that's not the squadron commander's job - he already has enough on his plate dealing with the crap the pilots bring into the equation).
Having a squadron or flight which "specializes" in flying or ES is not what CAP is all about. However, individual members can (and are encouraged) to pursue their interests in the organization.
The reasons, IMHO, are significant. First, members in such units tend not to advance in their professional development. Second, they become "experts in their own mind"; they ignore safety and, organizational best practices. And, third, such units tend not to participate as part of the greater whole. Such units tend to pick and choose what they want to do. For example; years ago there was a unit who's sole purpose was to participate at a summer activity. The members had no desire to be part of CAP except for that one special time. They had their own standards and, their own chain of command that, bypassed group or wing. The unit died after some major safety and legal issues occured.
I do understand most senior squadrons emphasize flying or ES. However, most squadrons/flights understand there is more to CAP and feel part of something more.
I believe this has already been tried and discarded. We have several 50 year plus members in our Squadron and going through their files prepping for the most recent SUI I found orders asigning members to "Pilot Pool Flight". So at least there was this one example. Were there more? Maybe the historian can answer.
Quote from: bflynn on March 26, 2012, 11:49:58 AM
Yes, but the original example was not about an entire squadron or wing. It was about individuals or subgroups within a squadron. If they focus on flying, will they be out of date with regards to cadet DDR status? Sure, but why would this matter? They (we) are civilian volunteers, so the amount you can require someone to do is limited, it isn't much beyond what they want to do in the first place.
It seems to me that you'd want to encourage volunteers to do things that bring energy, not require them to do things that grind them down.
What FW said is spot on.
This doesn't bring energy, it narrows the focus of a few "special" individuals who have decided they don't need to work and play well with others.
Being a volunteer doesn't mean you get to just come and go as you please, or make things up as you go, it means you bring your time and talents
to the whole, and insure that you are capable of meeting the requirements or the respective organization.
That's why CAP has never been, nor should it be for everyone, and more than the BSA, ARC, or NSCC is for everyone. We do what we do, and if "that" isn't in your wheelhouse, or the expectations are too high, there are similar organizations with lower expectations of member time that need help.