If this is true, then they should not have charters, and instead be made literal flights
of some other unit.
Flight CCs get the full badge, full authority over their members, credit towards command tracks and
related PD work, full status with WBP, in a few cases they encompass a big chunk of a wing's pilot assets.
Not to mention those with cadets.
They should not be allowed to operate without the oversight of the SUI just because they can't be bothered.
If by "full badge" you're referring to the Command Pin Insignia, CAPM 39-1 specifies that these insignias are for squadron and group commanders; there's no mention of flight commanders. The same goes for the Command Service Ribbon. CAPR 39-3 states that the basic ribbon is awarded for service as a squadron commander; again no mention of flight commanders.
That said, I agree with you. If flights have charters, they should be inspected. I personally would prefer to see flights as components of a unit, whether it be squadron, group or wing.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 14, 2014, 06:47:24 PMThat said, I agree with you. If flights have charters, they should be inspected. I personally would prefer to see flights as components of a unit, whether it be squadron, group or wing.
Frankly, this is the way it should be, and in some cases, the way its assumed to be until someone actually looks into it.
"We're going to become a flight so we don't have to deal with all the paperwork..."
"Um..."
They should change it so that a flight is always a component of a squadron (having them report to a Group or Wing defeats the purpose, as
these echelons are not supposed to be operational, and having a bunch of non-HQ members on the books would make them that),
then that unit CC is responsible for them, and they aren't allow to simply "do as we will"...
Since in some wings the senior flights make up a big chunk of the active pilots, you're now taking once of the few inspection
areas that is actually important to anyone and simply say "meh, not necessary..."
Which then leaves CAP open to the next discussion "Why does the gander get a pass and the goose gets a root canal?"
Where is this coming from?
The regulation (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R123_003_0285AB34DEED4.pdf)is pretty clear:
Quote from: 12. Subordinate Unit Inspections (SUIs). Each CAP wing will establish an inspection program plan of action (see Attachment 1) for its subordinate units (all chartered units) using the SUI checklist. Subordinate State legislative units are not subject to being inspected as part of the SUI program.
All chartered units except -999s (which are explicitly exempted by the regulation) are inspected. I presume that -000s are not, as they are not chartered units.
That's why I'm asking if anyone else has seen this.
I agree, would require a change to the reg.
So, basically, you're worked up about a change that you've seen no evidence is actually occurring?
Quote from: Eclipse on December 14, 2014, 07:26:22 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 14, 2014, 06:47:24 PMThat said, I agree with you. If flights have charters, they should be inspected. I personally would prefer to see flights as components of a unit, whether it be squadron, group or wing.
They should change it so that a flight is always a component of a squadron (having them report to a Group or Wing defeats the purpose, as
these echelons are not supposed to be operational, and having a bunch of non-HQ members on the books would make them that),
then that unit CC is responsible for them, and they aren't allow to simply "do as we will"...
I suppose I was thinking from an Air Force perspective, where groups and wings do have support flights assigned to them. But CAP is organized differently and that wouldn't work well under the current structure.
Quote from: JeffDG on December 14, 2014, 07:54:06 PM
So, basically, you're worked up about a change that you've seen no evidence is actually occurring?
PM Sent
Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 14, 2014, 07:57:58 PM
I suppose I was thinking from an Air Force perspective, where groups and wings do have support flights assigned to them. But CAP is organized differently and that wouldn't work well under the current structure.
I agree it has plenty of risk, but it's something which seems to always be in the ether in my wing, either in
regards to "seed units" or groups of seniors someone has deemed "necessary" but can't work and play well with others.
Should not each flight be associated with a parent squadron?
In theory all those program areas are run at the squadron level not the flight level.
If this is not the way it is being done....then you need to recharter all those flights into squadrons.
Is that really what it's saying? Everything that has a charter number gets inspected, is what it sounds like.
Are there flights out there that don't have charter numbers?
Where i've seen flights implemented, it's been a squadron that has been downgraded to 'flight' for shrinking below the minimum requirements to maintain squadron status, but the charter number that the squadron used to have is still applied (it's not administratively de-chartered, the charter number still exists, and has people assigned to it).
Or maybe a group of people trying to spin up a program, that haven't been granted a charter yet...
But their memberships are in "a charter", somewhere (wing holding maybe, or group staff of the group that they will eventually be in, perhaps)
In any event, there's a charter number there, that has a commander, who is accountable to inspection.
I've also seen the rough CAP equivalent of a "geographically separated unit", in this case, a squadron that had operations in one city on Tuesdays, and in another city about 30 miles away, on Thursdays. It was all one squadron, but it operated in two distinct locations. Both locations played together on weekends for example. But they were still both subordinate to one squadron commander.
Every CAP member should be administratively "in" one (and only one) OU that has a charter number.
Every OU that has a charter number should have one (and only one) commander.
That commander should be accountable to inspection.
**So if you have a flight of crusty senior members who are all hanging out in the group staff charter, then the group commander is accountable for all the nonsense that goes on out at that remote flight... The write-ups hit the group/cc. He can then either fix them, charter them as a squadron/flight, or punt them into wing holding. If they are patronized, or put in wing holding, they should not be operating... right?
Quote from: Eclipse on December 14, 2014, 04:05:35 PM
If this is true, then they should not have charters, and instead be made literal flights
of some other unit.
It is true. I just had a Flight fall off of my SUI Anniversary list, and when I inquired, was told only chartered units are inspected, not Flights. The
squadron Flight was chartered for years, but recently downgraded to a Flight. They were up for an inspection in May 2015.
If or when they resume squadron status, that date is their new SUI anniversary date.
Quote from: Laplace on December 14, 2014, 08:35:48 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 14, 2014, 04:05:35 PM
If this is true, then they should not have charters, and instead be made literal flights
of some other unit.
It is true. I just had a Flight fall off of my SUI Anniversary list, and when I inquired, was told only chartered units are inspected, not Flights. The squadron Flight was chartered for years, but recently downgraded to a Flight. They were up for an inspection in May 2015.
If or when they resume squadron status, that date is their new SUI anniversary date.
Well, CAPR 20-3 provides for the chartering of flights:
Quote5. How to Obtain Charters for New Units
...
c. A proposed name for the unit. Unit names must include the following elements:
...
2) Type of unit (group, cadet squadron, senior squadron, composite squadron, or flight)
So, coupled with the Inspection regulation, Flights are Chartered Units under CAPR 20-3
And I just checked...the Commander's Dashboard no longer lists Flights in the SUI section.
I've submitted a CAP Helpdesk ticket asking about it, and citing the regulations requiring flights to be inspected.
And why is a flight a flight?
Did the designation as a flight come about as the result of declining membership of what was once a squadron? If so, then would it not need more oversight and guidance to determine what is going wrong and how to fix it? Would removing it from an inspection/oversight only permit the underlying causes of declining membership to continue and get even worse?
On the other hand, Is the flight a newly formed unit on the way up? In this case does it not need even more guidance and oversight to encourage good operating practices and to provide full support to the commander and staff? These flights should be under the operational and administrative "control" of a parent squadron, and would not frequent administrative staff visits/inspections help find and stop problems while they are still small and easily fixed.
OK, remove the flights from the SUI. Does the wing have an "incubator" program where flights are supported, nurtured, guided, and encouraged as they migrate toward squadron status?
Jeff-
Please post the answer you get here. This is a very important issue.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on December 15, 2014, 11:59:40 PM
Jeff-
Please post the answer you get here. This is a very important issue.
Will do.
Quote from: JeffDG on December 16, 2014, 12:10:27 PM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on December 15, 2014, 11:59:40 PM
Jeff-
Please post the answer you get here. This is a very important issue.
Will do.
I'm interested if any more details are given. The response to my 12/03/14 CAP Helpdesk ticket on the deletion of a Flight from my Wing's SUI Anniversary list was simply,
"NHQ-USAF IG removed the Flights from the Dashboard and SUI anniversary."
Very interested here as well. I had a flight in my Group just disappear from the SUI part of Commander's Corner view around 3 DEC, and when asked about it, we got no answer from Wing IG until the e-mail on 14 DEC that Flights are no longer inspected.
So, if CAP/USAF says no to them, then, I guess that is that. :-X
Quote from: Papabird on December 16, 2014, 08:20:36 PM
Very interested here as well. I had a flight in my Group just disappear from the SUI part of Commander's Corner view around 3 DEC, and when asked about it, we got no answer from Wing IG until the e-mail on 14 DEC that Flights are no longer inspected.
So, if CAP/USAF says no to them, then, I guess that is that. :-X
Well, until they amend the regulations, issue an ICL or the like, they still need to be inspected every 24 months regardless of whether they appear in the Commander's Dashboard, just makes it more difficult to track. That's because the regulations are pretty clear on the matter (see above)
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on December 15, 2014, 11:59:40 PM
Jeff-
Please post the answer you get here. This is a very important issue.
Got my answer this morning:
QuoteOn 28 February 2015, we will be adding the chartered flights back onto the Commander's Dashboard. If your chartered flights do not have SUIs completed you will need to get them completed. Once the chartered flights are added back to the Commander's Dashboard you need to upload their SUIs into eServices.
So based on that, anything with a Charter still gets inspected, as we thought.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 14, 2015, 03:58:23 PM
So based on that, anything with a Charter still gets inspected, as we thought.
Yep, only one flight in my group that I help coordinate SUIs for, but I wanted to make sure we had things clarified.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 14, 2015, 04:19:37 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 14, 2015, 03:58:23 PM
So based on that, anything with a Charter still gets inspected, as we thought.
Yep, only one flight in my group that I help coordinate SUIs for, but I wanted to make sure we had things clarified.
In an unnamed wing, there was an unnamed flight attached to an unnamed group. This was a rather isolated area, but the word came down to try to develop a unit in the area. The kickoff meeting seemed to go well, the potential members were like most -curious, unsure, a bit stand offish. The flight started and as time went along, the staff support felt the unit commander (a three year member, on group staff, who was being 'tested' to see how he could handle command).
Things were quiet for awhile and a SLS was scheduled. The G/CC told the F/CC that they needed to bring as many of their people to the class, so they wouldn't be so insular and they could learn what the rest of CAP was doing (I have a feeling the spider web was being disturbed and someone's spidey senses were tingling). The first day of the SLS was, shall we say, a show stopper, when this flight arrived. Odd people, uniforms that were nowhere near appropriate and even the F/CC had 'gone native'. Afterward , the support from group shot up exponentially... it was referred to as 'going to Deliverance (as in the movie) Flight'. That, friends, is why (A) a new flight needs at least two seasoned hands at each meeting; (B) Do a little better job of looking over potential Flight CCs and (C) The Group Commander learned a valuable lesson about supervision.