Was reading CAP news online and came across the CAP Officer Basic Course article. First off, I think this is a great idea its about time for an update. Secondly the second paragraph says that an outline is attached, but I am not finding it. Am I missing it or is it someplace else?
Quote from: Capt_Redfox30 on December 11, 2008, 12:05:50 AM
Secondly the second paragraph says that an outline is attached, but I am not finding it. Am I missing it or is it someplace else?
The letter reads like it was originally sent to unit commanders, so I expect that the attachment was included in the copy that they received.
Haven't seen it. Must be wing or higher dissemination at this point.
Quote from: IceNine on December 11, 2008, 02:36:09 AM
Haven't seen it. Must be wing or higher dissemination at this point.
Same here. No attachment.
Linky:
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/Gen_Courter_CAPOBC_Call_for_Volunte_7EEB7BA31DDE1.pdf
hmmm.......no section on "officership", nor on what it means to be a CAP Officer. Also, why include a section on Chaplains??
Perhaps they need to "Borrow the AFROTC or ROTC curriculum, condense it into the 20 hours and be done with it.
It is Called the Cap OFFICER Basic Course, but not very much relating to Officers. Maybe I am reading into it too much.
I would include excerpts from "The Air Force Officers Guide" as well as "The Commissioned Officer" a book published by DoD in the late 1950's on what it meant to be an Officer. We need to strengthen the meaning of the insignia we wear on our shoulders, show what it means, where it fits in inside CAP and with the AF (we being the auxiliary) or else get rid of it. This course will be the foundation for many individuals coming into CAP with no previous military experience and only a conception on what an Officer is based on TV and movies. This should be a course that sets the foundation to become a truly excellent CAP Professional, but sadly will most likely be "the the thing you do to get promoted" and will be rushed through as fast as possible so the new member can make Captain.
I already emailed my concerns and asked that an "Officership" section be included, but it will most likely be ignored. Hey a section on Followership is great, but that is not a major aspect of what being a CAP Officer is. We as CAP Officers make decisions and need an understanding on how to make those decisions according to CAP standards.
Also, lets leave out sections on Chaplains and IG's, and save that for SLS and CLS, where it belongs. I bet one of the "designers of this course is a Chaplain??
This is a great idea, and I love Blackboard, but I would hate to see it become the "Ok, sit down with me and we will do the course together" thing at the new members first three meetings. Does that make any sense?? I guess I am trying to get across that It should be just as challenging if not more so Than AFIADL-13 now that it can be taken on line.
I guess I'm not that impressed with 3 sections meant to take 30 minutes each and I'm not sure how that adds up to 20 hours worth "contact hours".
Agree that there is no need for the Chaplain Corps section. Not so sure that it wouldn't be helpful to have the IG section as we do want all our officers to know something about that as they can expect to participate in inspections at some point.
We probably should think about what the purpose of this course is as distinct from the Squadron Leadership School and Corporate Learning Course. Their "strawman" for this course seems more like what should be in Level 1 in my book.
So what if a Chaplain is one of the designers of the course? Given the general lack of understanding of what chaplaincy is or isn't in Civil Air Patrol educating the membership seems like a good idea to me. But what do I know, I'm just one of those silly little chaplains!
Quote from: RiverAux on December 16, 2008, 04:54:16 PMI guess I'm not that impressed with 3 sections meant to take 30 minutes each and I'm not sure how that adds up to 20 hours worth "contact hours".
Three core areas, with several sections each, that all add up to 20 hours.
Quote from: DogCollar on December 16, 2008, 05:00:55 PM
So what if a Chaplain is one of the designers of the course? Given the general lack of understanding of what chaplaincy is or isn't in Civil Air Patrol educating the membership seems like a good idea to me. But what do I know, I'm just one of those silly little chaplains!
Hey.....never said you were Silly or Little. But in my experience people of certain groups that collaborate on a joint project like to inject their job and skills into things that may not need it like, this course. If we include a Chaplain Section why not a section on all Specialties. More relevant would be a Cadet Programs, Aerospace Education and Emergency Services Section (What are the Three Missions of CAP again??).
I like the concept. I think no matter what they do, they're going to include/omit some topic that people didn't want to be included/omitted. The proposed curriculum, for me, covers enough of the important topics that I won't nitpick.
If you look at SLS and this as complimentary, then maybe it will help explain why Chaplain and IG stuff is included.
I think it would be beneficial to include some readings. Peppering the curriculum with some essays at key points can provide additional detail where needed. Using readings also cuts down on the amount of video content that needs to be developed, while not cutting back on any valuable information.
My only complaint is that there will never be a graded evaluation that is not open book. Maybe they evaluated the SOS approach (online quizzes with in-person milestone exams) and decided it would be too cumbersome. It's pretty clear from the concept paper that they want this to be more accessible, allowing more people to complete Level II.
Quote from: dwb on December 16, 2008, 05:05:18 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 16, 2008, 04:54:16 PMI guess I'm not that impressed with 3 sections meant to take 30 minutes each and I'm not sure how that adds up to 20 hours worth "contact hours".
Three core areas, with several sections each, that all add up to 20 hours.
On re-reading the letter, it does appear that it is 30 minutes for each of the 41 topics. I can get on board with that.
Quote from: dhon27 on December 16, 2008, 03:49:24 PM
Linky:
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/Gen_Courter_CAPOBC_Call_for_Volunte_7EEB7BA31DDE1.pdf
Thank you for the link!
Quote from: Timbo on December 16, 2008, 05:09:20 PM
Quote from: DogCollar on December 16, 2008, 05:00:55 PM
So what if a Chaplain is one of the designers of the course? Given the general lack of understanding of what chaplaincy is or isn't in Civil Air Patrol educating the membership seems like a good idea to me. But what do I know, I'm just one of those silly little chaplains!
Hey.....never said you were Silly or Little. But in my experience people of certain groups that collaborate on a joint project like to inject their job and skills into things that may not need it like, this course. If we include a Chaplain Section why not a section on all Specialties. More relevant would be a Cadet Programs, Aerospace Education and Emergency Services Section (What are the Three Missions of CAP again??).
Chaplains are a separate issue - they have their own "parallel" system and it doesn't need to be discussed when trying to develop officers.
Officership, as discussed earlier, is key and isn't addressed. I too have a copy of the Armed Forces Officer. It was given to me by an early Air Force Academy graduate WIWAC. I used it during my cadet career, military career, and later as a CAP commander and mentor.
The reason why officership in CAP is lacking is because it isn't taught. The caliber of officer in CAP isn't lacking, it's the gun powder.
Part of that "gunpowder" is planning, also not discussed. I'm trying to remember who it was but there's a member of this board who just got out of RM officer basic course. OBCs are HEAVY on planning, and CAP is not. This is one of our problems and should be one of the systemic fixes needed to raise the level of professionalism.
Gunner
Quote from: Gunner C on December 17, 2008, 09:08:41 AM
Part of that "gunpowder" is planning, also not discussed. I'm trying to remember who it was but there's a member of this board who just got out of RM officer basic course. OBCs are HEAVY on planning, and CAP is not. This is one of our problems and should be one of the systemic fixes needed to raise the level of professionalism.
Gunner
Definitely agree! Planning is made even more critical in an organization such as Civil Air Patrol which depends on volunteers who do not serve in full time positions for the organization. Emphasis on short and long term planning, even at the squadron level, would foster a climate of increased satisfaction for members and certainly enhance both mission readiness and mission effectiveness.
Quote from: Gunner C on December 17, 2008, 09:08:41 AM
Officership, as discussed earlier, is key and isn't addressed. I too have a copy of the Armed Forces Officer. It was given to me by an early Air Force Academy graduate WIWAC. I used it during my cadet career, military career, and later as a CAP commander and mentor.
The reason why officership in CAP is lacking is because it isn't taught. The caliber of officer in CAP isn't lacking, it's the gun powder.
Yes.....
Armed Forces Officer is the correct title, I said
Commissioned Officer (SORRY!) It is a very good read and can easily be excerpted from for use in CAP.
All I saw was a bunch of "filler" and no real areas of concentration that will make the new member say "Wow that is what it means to be in CAP and be a CAP Officer".
Quote from: Gunner C on December 17, 2008, 09:08:41 AM
Quote from: Timbo on December 16, 2008, 05:09:20 PM
Quote from: DogCollar on December 16, 2008, 05:00:55 PM
So what if a Chaplain is one of the designers of the course? Given the general lack of understanding of what chaplaincy is or isn't in Civil Air Patrol educating the membership seems like a good idea to me. But what do I know, I'm just one of those silly little chaplains!
Hey.....never said you were Silly or Little. But in my experience people of certain groups that collaborate on a joint project like to inject their job and skills into things that may not need it like, this course. If we include a Chaplain Section why not a section on all Specialties. More relevant would be a Cadet Programs, Aerospace Education and Emergency Services Section (What are the Three Missions of CAP again??).
Chaplains are a separate issue - they have their own "parallel" system and it doesn't need to be discussed when trying to develop officers.
Gunner
Two things that I would like to comment on:
1) A chaplain was not on the "design team".
2) This course in development as well as the current AFIADL 13 is required of ALL CAP members (including Chaplains) as part of the requirement for Level 2. Yes, they may have a specialty track (221) but effective as of August, Chaplains will be required to complete SLS and CLC -- completing the 221 and 221A courses are no longer accpected as a subsitute for SLS and CLC. The "parallel" system is disappearing and becoming more aligned with the other CAP members when it comes to the Senior Member Professional Development Program.
Believe it or not, Chaplains are (should be -- and shame on those chaplains who aren't) involved in all three missions of Civil Air Patrol.
Quote from: Chappie on December 17, 2008, 05:06:48 PM
Quote from: Gunner C on December 17, 2008, 09:08:41 AM
Quote from: Timbo on December 16, 2008, 05:09:20 PM
Quote from: DogCollar on December 16, 2008, 05:00:55 PM
So what if a Chaplain is one of the designers of the course? Given the general lack of understanding of what chaplaincy is or isn't in Civil Air Patrol educating the membership seems like a good idea to me. But what do I know, I'm just one of those silly little chaplains!
Hey.....never said you were Silly or Little. But in my experience people of certain groups that collaborate on a joint project like to inject their job and skills into things that may not need it like, this course. If we include a Chaplain Section why not a section on all Specialties. More relevant would be a Cadet Programs, Aerospace Education and Emergency Services Section (What are the Three Missions of CAP again??).
Chaplains are a separate issue - they have their own "parallel" system and it doesn't need to be discussed when trying to develop officers.
Gunner
Two things that I would like to comment on:
1) A chaplain was not on the "design team".
2) This course in development as well as the current AFIADL 13 is required of ALL CAP members (including Chaplains) as part of the requirement for Level 2. Yes, they may have a specialty track (221) but effective as of August, Chaplains will be required to complete SLS and CLC -- completing the 221 and 221A courses are no longer accpected as a subsitute for SLS and CLC. The "parallel" system is disappearing and becoming more aligned with the other CAP members when it comes to the Senior Member Professional Development Program.
Believe it or not, Chaplains are (should be -- and shame on those chaplains who aren't) involved in all three missions of Civil Air Patrol.
Here, here!!! :clap:
It's about time :clap:
"Believe it or not, Chaplains are (should be -- and shame on those chaplains who aren't) involved in all three missions of Civil Air Patrol."
Amen to that! That being said, I have a Chaplain in my squadron that has a goal of being at every activity in the state where a Chaplain is needed. That's the good news. The bad news is that at every SAREX or mission he tries to go to, he's turned away by the IC.
They want him at missions such as the Fosset mision and the like and they expect him to be qualified but they won't allow him to get the training.
Kind of like the cadets and ES. Get them trained but don't use them.
Grumpy
If that is all true.... which I can believe...
Then that/ those IC's need a little TRAINING themselves
A waste of manpower and surely if they require his presence and he recieves no training...
CAN somebody spell IG?? or these the same folks?? Total CAP BS
It's no wonder why some of the membership questions this and other types of antics...
Luv to have seen them in some tougher RM organizations.... OER's and whatnot..not getting the troops trained, not looking out for the welfare of the troops
If you as higher eschelon (sp) IC types aren't taking care of your people. You NEED some leadership training. And I do not mean CAP type training
Do not waste peoples time .....waste your own if you can not identify a problem....
Quote from: Grumpy on December 17, 2008, 09:44:13 PM
"Believe it or not, Chaplains are (should be -- and shame on those chaplains who aren't) involved in all three missions of Civil Air Patrol."
Amen to that! That being said, I have a Chaplain in my squadron that has a goal of being at every activity in the state where a Chaplain is needed. That's the good news. The bad news is that at every SAREX or mission he tries to go to, he's turned away by the IC.
They want him at missions such as the Fosset mision and the like and they expect him to be qualified but they won't allow him to get the training.
Kind of like the cadets and ES. Get them trained but don't use them.
Grumpy -- I am aware of the Chaplain of whom you speak...and there is none finer or more trained. The Wing Ops director should be informed of what is taking place so this can be addressed.
Quote from: Chappie on December 17, 2008, 11:14:43 PM
Quote from: Grumpy on December 17, 2008, 09:44:13 PM
"Believe it or not, Chaplains are (should be -- and shame on those chaplains who aren't) involved in all three missions of Civil Air Patrol."
Amen to that! That being said, I have a Chaplain in my squadron that has a goal of being at every activity in the state where a Chaplain is needed. That's the good news. The bad news is that at every SAREX or mission he tries to go to, he's turned away by the IC.
They want him at missions such as the Fosset mision and the like and they expect him to be qualified but they won't allow him to get the training.
Kind of like the cadets and ES. Get them trained but don't use them.
Grumpy -- I am aware of the Chaplain of whom you speak...and there is none finer or more trained. The Wing Ops director should be informed of what is taking place so this can be addressed.
Grumpy,
This is an outrage! Are you saying that they are requiring him to be a Mission Chaplain (which is good a proper) but not laetting him receive the training? There are a number of ethical issues involved here.
^ That IC needs fired. If he is qualified to be at the SAREX in any capacity, let that member train as though he were any other member. Shame on the leadership for letting that happen.
Thanks for the response. Yes it is true. This man has been CAP just a little over 2 years now and he's completed all four levels of training, not to mention the ES training that he has taken on his own.
Chappie, I'm headed to Ft Campbell for a couple of weeks but when I get back I intend to talk to our mutual friend and follow up on it.
Outside of trying to win the Wing's "Glass Belt Buckle" award, I can't think of any reason a IC would turn a MC away from anything.
Like I said, when I get back, he and I are going to have a long talk to determine what way we want to go to handle it. There have been other complaints about the IC from other officers.
I want to look before I jump.
Getting back to the subject, I get a little laugh thinking about how many CAP senior members would go ballistic if they had to do the amount of training that CAP members had to do during the WWII period. I've seen various numbers, but all CAP members were expected to go through a "basic" training course that was 100+ hours in duration.
^ Not to mention Encampments were not for Cadets back then (although some did attend) it was for CAP Enlisted and Officer types.
The volunteer time was so very tremendous, but it was totally different during that war than today.
Now we are asking for the new member to spend 20-30 hours on this new basic course so they can eventually become a Captain, and I foresee many that will say that is too much of a commitment.
Quote^ Not to mention Encampments were not for Cadets back then (although some did attend) it was for CAP Enlisted and Officer types.
That may be a little bit of a generalization. My Wing had several encampment type activities during the war and they were very focused on cadet aviation education and training.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 19, 2008, 02:16:20 AM
Quote^ Not to mention Encampments were not for Cadets back then (although some did attend) it was for CAP Enlisted and Officer types.
That may be a little bit of a generalization. My Wing had several encampment type activities during the war and they were very focused on cadet aviation education and training.
My big brother was a cadet back then and actually got his pilot's license through CAP.