Cadet Membership Upper Age Change?

[HGjunkie]

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.

[Short Field]

Like I said, It's just your perspective.

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.

[Eagle400]

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.

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). 

[lordmonar]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Eagle400]

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.     

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.

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).   

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 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).

I 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?   

[Eclipse]

^ 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.

[Eagle400]

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).   

[tsrup]

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)...

[Eagle400]

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

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!

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

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.

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,

and 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.   

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.

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).     

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.

Bingo; no argument here sir.   

This 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.               

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.

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).         

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)...

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?     

[HGjunkie]

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

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!

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

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.

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,

and 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.   

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.

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).     

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.

Bingo; no argument here sir.   

This 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.               

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.

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).         

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)...

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.

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.               

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).

[DakRadz]

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.

[Eclipse]

^ 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".

[Lt Oliv]

^ 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.

[Ned]

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.

2) 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?

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.

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

[Eclipse]

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.

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.

[Lt Oliv]

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.

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.

[davidsinn]

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.

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.

[Lt Oliv]

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.

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.

[davidsinn]

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.