http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/CAP_Commander_Objectives_August_201_8E3B2793BBB7C.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/CAP_Commander_Objectives_August_201_8E3B2793BBB7C.pdf)
Nice corporate org chart. Good bye AF Aux, hello CAP corporation.
Focus on aircrews, distancing again from ground operations...
One year free membership to military... More special promotions? This has been discussed several threads in CAPTalk... So I do not feel a need to rehash everything that has been said...
AOPA and Scouts like organizations (to CAP)... AOPA yes. Scouts, did he mean Boy Scouts? I don't think so...
Did I miss something here?
You never know if an org chart will work until you see it in action. I'll reserve judgment there, but I like the concept of unifying the paid and volunteer staff (as fraught with difficulty as it has been).
Slide 6 is interesting. It gets its own slide in a very short briefing, and it basically says "stop the flurry of uncoordinated changes". No more regs released on Friday afternoon and effective immediately (*cough* CPP). Every recent commander seems to promise this, let's see if they stick to it.
I'm optimistic about the new CEO. I like the focus on member development and new missions. We shall see what transpires!
Pilots pilots pilots...
It's nice to see CP will be well supported... (Sarcasm warning)
I feel that having IT report to the COO via Ops is wrong. Most modern organizations have IT report directly to the CEO or COO as all parts of the organization need and use technology.
Quote from: THRAWN on August 17, 2014, 01:39:36 PM
Nice corporate org chart. Good bye AF Aux, hello CAP corporation.
How so? all that stuff is NHQ-internal organization for the CAP corporate side, which has always been under the COO (formerly Executive Director). For us the volunteers in the main CAP chain of command we're still ultimately reporting to CAP/CC.
Quote from: keystone102 on August 17, 2014, 05:22:18 PM
I feel that having IT report to the COO via Ops is wrong. Most modern organizations have IT report directly to the CEO or COO as all parts of the organization need and use technology.
An organization such as a company or regular business perhaps, but look back to your FEMA training and the various ESFs or to any military org chart and you'll see how IT fits in as a subfunction of Ops. The only people that consistently need to report to the Old Man are the CV and the major department heads/branches, otherwise the span of control needed becomes unwieldy.
Quote from: THRAWN on August 17, 2014, 01:39:36 PM
Nice corporate org chart. Good bye AF Aux, hello CAP corporation.
It's been that way for a loooong time.
Quote from: NCRblues on August 17, 2014, 04:09:42 PMIt's nice to see CP will be well supported... (Sarcasm warning)
Maj Gen Vazquez is an Earhart cadet. And a frequent orientation pilot in VAWG. I doubt the CP mission will be ignored under his tutelage.
Quote from: dwb on August 17, 2014, 07:31:52 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on August 17, 2014, 04:09:42 PMIt's nice to see CP will be well supported... (Sarcasm warning)
Maj Gen Vazquez is an Earhart cadet. And a frequent orientation pilot in VAWG. I doubt the CP mission will be ignored under his tutelage.
Yeah, I suspect that the "lack of support" to CP in this report is a reflection that CP is currently the least of our worries.
Quote from: NCRblues on August 17, 2014, 04:09:42 PM
Pilots pilots pilots...
It's nice to see CP will be well supported... (Sarcasm warning)
What do you think its meant by "train new pilots"? I'm guessing it's not seniors
Quote from: Garp on August 17, 2014, 08:58:32 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on August 17, 2014, 04:09:42 PM
Pilots pilots pilots...
It's nice to see CP will be well supported... (Sarcasm warning)
What do you think its meant by "train new pilots"? I'm guessing it's not seniors
I think it means just that. Many wings are currently short on pilots, which are needed for many of our missions. It also takes much longer to get pilots trained and through their Forms 5 and 91 than with most CAP qualifications.
As someone who's heavily involved in group ops, I can understand the emphasis on air ops. After all, as important as ground ops are, we are the Civil
Air Patrol and our fleet of aircraft and trained aircrews are one of our largest CAP assets.
I would hope that the train new pilots mission has both connotations. Yes, internally we need more pilots. However, in the civilian fleet we need more as well. There are many forecasts that show pilot development is far behind future demand.
And I've long thought we could do more with marketing/support relationship with the ERAUs and UNDs of the world.
Quote from: keystone102 on August 17, 2014, 05:22:18 PM
I feel that having IT report to the COO via Ops is wrong. Most modern organizations have IT report directly to the CEO or COO as all parts of the organization need and use technology.
Most studies disagree with you.
For the most part, the majority of CIOs report via the CFO when you look at large organizations (F500ish)
http://vell.com/blog/research/456-fortune-500-cio-succession-%E2%80%93-who-do-cios-report-to-now/ (http://vell.com/blog/research/456-fortune-500-cio-succession-%E2%80%93-who-do-cios-report-to-now/)
Quote from: Garp on August 17, 2014, 08:58:32 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on August 17, 2014, 04:09:42 PM
Pilots pilots pilots...
It's nice to see CP will be well supported... (Sarcasm warning)
What do you think its meant by "train new pilots"? I'm guessing it's not seniors
My big regret was that (discounted) pilot training was not available (or, at least, was never communicated to me) when I was a cadet back in the 80's.
Quote from: keystone102 on August 17, 2014, 05:22:18 PM
I feel that having IT report to the COO via Ops is wrong. Most modern organizations have IT report directly to the CEO or COO as all parts of the organization need and use technology.
I'm betting they have IT reporting to Ops because they spend a large portion of their time working for Ops. I'm guessing WMIRS and the eServices operations-related utilities (e.g., Ops Quals) take up a bunch of the IT dept's time.
Then why doesn't finance report to ops? My point is that technology is used by the whole organization. Having IT report to finance or ops can cause internal conflicts. The priority for IT development should be done at a executive level, not decided by functional areas.
In any event I will salute and keep rolling along.
Quote from: keystone102 on August 18, 2014, 05:27:42 AM
Then why doesn't finance report to ops? My point is that technology is used by the whole organization. Having IT report to finance or ops can cause internal conflicts. The priority for IT development should be done at a executive level, not decided by functional areas.
In any event I will salute and keep rolling along.
Makes sense, especially with IT's impact throughout an organization opposed to just the major functional areas
Quote from: keystone102 on August 18, 2014, 05:27:42 AM
Then why doesn't finance report to ops? My point is that technology is used by the whole organization. Having IT report to finance or ops can cause internal conflicts. The priority for IT development should be done at a executive level, not decided by functional areas.
In any event I will salute and keep rolling along.
In this case, I doubt IT is managing workstations, or public-facing websites. I think it's only 1 or 2 employees that spend most of their time on specific projects.
Within the larger organization, I would agree with you. Keeping in mind that NHQ is really one small office, they probably aligned folks where they need them.
Quote from: MajorM on August 17, 2014, 10:45:10 PM
I would hope that the train new pilots mission has both connotations. Yes, internally we need more pilots. However, in the civilian fleet we need more as well. There are many forecasts that show pilot development is far behind future demand.
And I've long thought we could do more with marketing/support relationship with the ERAUs and UNDs of the world.
The whole reason behind the Seniors not being able to do their primary training in CAP aircraft is because of the concern that it would be abused. Seniors would join to get cheap flight training, and then leave the organization...all take, no give. My hunch is that this will not go away.
My hope is that there will be emphasis on helping the VFR F5 pilots get the required hours needed for TMP and MP. Therein lies the challenge, in my own opinion. We have pilots that come in with brand new PPLs with 50 or 60 hours of PIC, all excited to help and make use of their PPLs in what we do. Currently, we look at them and go "We'd love to help you out as soon as you hit 100 hours of PIC, and then only on a limited basis until you reach 200 hours PIC." That span between 50 hours PIC and 200 hours PIC is a very frustrating time for CAP pilots unless you happen to be sitting on a small mound of cash.
I personally look forward to seeing how the emphasis on getting back to pilot basics and helping our pilot community grow will take place.
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on August 18, 2014, 02:53:10 PM
Quote from: MajorM on August 17, 2014, 10:45:10 PM
I would hope that the train new pilots mission has both connotations. Yes, internally we need more pilots. However, in the civilian fleet we need more as well. There are many forecasts that show pilot development is far behind future demand.
And I've long thought we could do more with marketing/support relationship with the ERAUs and UNDs of the world.
The whole reason behind the Seniors not being able to do their primary training in CAP aircraft is because of the concern that it would be abused. Seniors would join to get cheap flight training, and then leave the organization...all take, no give. My hunch is that this will not go away.
My hope is that there will be emphasis on helping the VFR F5 pilots get the required hours needed for TMP and MP. Therein lies the challenge, in my own opinion. We have pilots that come in with brand new PPLs with 50 or 60 hours of PIC, all excited to help and make use of their PPLs in what we do. Currently, we look at them and go "We'd love to help you out as soon as you hit 100 hours of PIC, and then only on a limited basis until you reach 200 hours PIC." That span between 50 hours PIC and 200 hours PIC is a very frustrating time for CAP pilots unless you happen to be sitting on a small mound of cash.
I personally look forward to seeing how the emphasis on getting back to pilot basics and helping our pilot community grow will take place.
Good points. I'm one of those folks who joined sub 100h PIC, and I'm in the TMP area now at 145. 30 more to MP trainee (175 let's you become a trainee!) are two ways that you can react to "Sorry, you don't have the hours to be an MP." One is to just leave the organization as you can't do the thing you joined to do. The other is to say "Well, if I can't do that, what can I do?" then jump on every opportunity to learn other jobs as you can with enthusiasm.
Personally, I took the latter approach. I quickly worked up the "Staff" side of the equation, being a 2nd Lt AOBD, and a 1st Lt. IC (briefly...IIRC, I was a month or two short of Capt TIG at the time!). The problem now is, I go to SAREXs and instead of building my hours towards MP by flying a nice highbird (and let me tell you, that's the best job ever in the South in the summer! 90+ on the ground becomes more pleasant at 9,500' for sure.), I'm on the ground either acting as staff, or helping train the staff. Not a big deal to me, the mission's getting done, and ultimately, the reason I joined CAP was to help the mission get done...if the best place for me to do that is in mission base, so be it.
Now, the issue's been identified, how do we fix it? That's a question I've thought long and hard about, and don't have an answer. Every answer I come up with I'm afraid to suggest, as it would seem self-serving (ie. it would personally benefit me...)
For example: Could we subsidize TMPs to get their Instrument Ratings in CAP aircraft? The regulations permit it...non-MPs can get additional ratings with Wing Commander approval, and that's a minimum of 15 hours of instrument instruction required. It would be helpful to the mission, as even TMPs sometimes have to punch through a cloud layer to do a transport of highbird mission...truth be told, an Instrument Rating would be of more use to a TMP than an MP in many situations, as you can't do a visual search in instrument conditions, while you can happily fly a highbird in or above an overcast layer, and you can transport through clouds just fine (assuming no convection or icing of course).
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on August 18, 2014, 02:53:10 PM
The whole reason behind the Seniors not being able to do their primary training in CAP aircraft is because of the concern that it would be abused. Seniors would join to get cheap flight training, and then leave the organization...all take, no give. My hunch is that this will not go away.
Then just limit the opportunity to those SMs who have been active (as opposed to just sending in a check) for
n years. Or set some other pre-requisites.
Quote from: Panache on August 18, 2014, 03:46:44 PM
Then just limit the opportunity to those SMs who have been active (as opposed to just sending in a check) for n years. Or set some other pre-requisites.
Yes, that is a solution. Then the next challenge you have is finding CFIs who are willing to donate between 40 and 65 hours of instruction time to a Senior PPL student. It's already difficult enough finding instructors that are willing to donate that much time and lost revenue to MPs going after advanced ratings. In my own experience, I find plenty of CFIs who are willing to donate that time and lost revenue to cadets. But generally the attitude is different towards Seniors and getting their PPLs. Now, if you allow CFIs to charge for their services to Seniors getting their PPLs in CAP aircraft, then you change the game completely. But I personally don't believe it'll ever happen that way.
Quote from: Panache on August 18, 2014, 03:46:44 PM
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on August 18, 2014, 02:53:10 PM
The whole reason behind the Seniors not being able to do their primary training in CAP aircraft is because of the concern that it would be abused. Seniors would join to get cheap flight training, and then leave the organization...all take, no give. My hunch is that this will not go away.
Then just limit the opportunity to those SMs who have been active (as opposed to just sending in a check) for n years. Or set some other pre-requisites.
Pretty much what it is for non-MPs that are seeking additional ratings...need Wing Commander approval, and a member who is just "taking" and not contributing anything are far less likely to receive Wing Commander approval. Fill a job that the Wing needs and Wing Commander approval is likely to be forthcoming.
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on August 18, 2014, 04:19:16 PM
Yes, that is a solution. Then the next challenge you have is finding CFIs who are willing to donate between 40 and 65 hours of instruction time to a Senior PPL student. It's already difficult enough finding instructors that are willing to donate that much time and lost revenue to MPs going after advanced ratings. In my own experience, I find plenty of CFIs who are willing to donate that time and lost revenue to cadets. But generally the attitude is different towards Seniors and getting their PPLs. Now, if you allow CFIs to charge for their services to Seniors getting their PPLs in CAP aircraft, then you change the game completely. But I personally don't believe it'll ever happen that way.
I have three CFIs & one CFI-trainee in my unit. No problem there.
And a 172.
I'm a 30+ year member. I'm not going away soon.
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on August 18, 2014, 02:53:10 PM
Quote from: MajorM on August 17, 2014, 10:45:10 PM
I would hope that the train new pilots mission has both connotations. Yes, internally we need more pilots. However, in the civilian fleet we need more as well. There are many forecasts that show pilot development is far behind future demand.
And I've long thought we could do more with marketing/support relationship with the ERAUs and UNDs of the world.
The whole reason behind the Seniors not being able to do their primary training in CAP aircraft is because of the concern that it would be abused. Seniors would join to get cheap flight training, and then leave the organization...all take, no give. My hunch is that this will not go away.
There was another reason which is still valid.
CAP giving flight instruction to seniors was perceived as depriving FBOs of potential students. That's especially problematic where FBO support is being sought by CAP, such as use of meeting space, pilots lounge, tiedown and fuel discounts. It's tough competing with the FBO for flight training and then trying to partner with that FBO.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on August 19, 2014, 06:54:24 AM
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on August 18, 2014, 02:53:10 PM
Quote from: MajorM on August 17, 2014, 10:45:10 PM
I would hope that the train new pilots mission has both connotations. Yes, internally we need more pilots. However, in the civilian fleet we need more as well. There are many forecasts that show pilot development is far behind future demand.
And I've long thought we could do more with marketing/support relationship with the ERAUs and UNDs of the world.
The whole reason behind the Seniors not being able to do their primary training in CAP aircraft is because of the concern that it would be abused. Seniors would join to get cheap flight training, and then leave the organization...all take, no give. My hunch is that this will not go away.
There was another reason which is still valid.
CAP giving flight instruction to seniors was perceived as depriving FBOs of potential students.
As it stands now, pilot training is too expensive and out of reach for me. I simply do not have the disposable income for it.
Now, if I was to get discounted training through CAP and got my PP license, I would be more likely to use (and pay for) the services offered at a FBO.
We will never be in the business of competing with FBO flight schools, however we should help those member pilots who wish to actively serve. With Air Force support, and hopefully, financial ability, CAP will keep a highly trained, competent, proficient, and safe flying cadre. This can be done, not only through subsidizing advanced training for MPs, but by offering flight "scholarships" to those senior members willing to become mission pilots. This idea was first brought to the table in 2001 by Gen Bowling. Maybe it is time to revisit this?
Quote from: FW on August 19, 2014, 11:22:43 AM
We will never be in the business of competing with FBO flight schools, however we should help those member pilots who wish to actively serve. With Air Force support, and hopefully, financial ability, CAP will keep a highly trained, competent, proficient, and safe flying cadre. This can be done, not only through subsidizing advanced training for MPs, but by offering flight "scholarships" to those senior members willing to become mission pilots. This idea was first brought to the table in 2001 by Gen Bowling. Maybe it is time to revisit this?
ab initio Mission Pilot training?
Quote from: NIN on August 19, 2014, 02:53:49 PM
Quote from: FW on August 19, 2014, 11:22:43 AM
We will never be in the business of competing with FBO flight schools, however we should help those member pilots who wish to actively serve. With Air Force support, and hopefully, financial ability, CAP will keep a highly trained, competent, proficient, and safe flying cadre. This can be done, not only through subsidizing advanced training for MPs, but by offering flight "scholarships" to those senior members willing to become mission pilots. This idea was first brought to the table in 2001 by Gen Bowling. Maybe it is time to revisit this?
ab initio Mission Pilot training?
Sometimes it's better to catch folks early before they develop bad habits. Much easier to train "good" habits than try and train folks out of bad ones!
Quote from: JeffDG on August 19, 2014, 03:09:35 PM
Sometimes it's better to catch folks early before they develop bad habits. Much easier to train "good" habits than try and train folks out of bad ones!
That was kind of my point. Primary students trained by CAP folks
ab initio might be more comfortable in a CAP-specific flying environment (things like sterile cockpit, slow flight maneuvers, etc) right from the start.
I train skydiving students. I do it in a way that involves jumping from 13,500 from your very first jump. Full-on freefall
ab inito.
I learned via static line, where you make very small incremental increases to your altitude and free fall time. Sort of the reverse.
Can't tell you how many of my students, when it is time to do their 5,500 & 3,500 ft "hop & pop" jumps (part of their license progression, usually around jump 9-12), lose their minds about how "low" they're jumping.
My first 8-10 jumps were from 3,000 to 5,500 ft. 5,500 ft ain't
low. If you're trained from day one with it, its no big deal.
( I flipped out a little when, after 6 static line jumps, I went and did AFF, and they opened that door at 13,500. Whoa! )
Quote from: NIN on August 19, 2014, 03:40:36 PM
Can't tell you how many of my students, when it is time to do their 5,500 & 3,500 ft "hop & pop" jumps (part of their license progression, usually around jump 9-12), lose their minds about how "low" they're jumping.
When I went to Airborne, we had a few that could not grasp the altitude (Jump 1: 1250 ft; Jumps 2-5: 800ft "1250ft"). They thought that was too low.
I guess low is always relative. :)
Call me less than impressed (it looks like a hastily thrown together presentation) but nonetheless it's good to see some strategic thought taking place and being shared. So kudos on that. I heard one goal shared was to reduce regs by 1/3rd (a very welcome change if it can be accomplished). Will we ever see a follow up/status on progress? Will actions from NHQ align with this? We'll see.
Quote from: LSThiker on August 19, 2014, 08:00:44 PM
Quote from: NIN on August 19, 2014, 03:40:36 PM
Can't tell you how many of my students, when it is time to do their 5,500 & 3,500 ft "hop & pop" jumps (part of their license progression, usually around jump 9-12), lose their minds about how "low" they're jumping.
When I went to Airborne, we had a few that could not grasp the altitude (Jump 1: 1250 ft; Jumps 2-5: 800ft "1250ft"). They thought that was too low.
I guess low is always relative. :)
Low, to me, would be:
"One thousand, Two thousand, Three thous---" splat.
Quote from: Garibaldi on August 20, 2014, 01:51:38 PM
Low, to me, would be:
"One thousand, Two thousand, Three thous---" splat.
Yeah. It has been a long time, but if I remember the numbers correctly, at 800ft, you have 2.4 seconds to activate your reserve chute while at 1250ft, you have 4.9 seconds. :)