Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 26, 2019, 11:58:24 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: Paper: Structural Change, etc
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Send this topic Print
Author Topic: Paper: Structural Change, etc  (Read 14918 times)
jayleswo
Forum Regular

Posts: 131
Unit: PCR-CA-001

« Reply #20 on: January 06, 2007, 03:29:08 PM »

Just to add a few thoughts to the discussion:

1. We need to get away from everyone is an officer. Officer grade above 1st Lt  should be reserved for sitting unit commanders. Commanders would receive temporary promotions to Capt (Squadron), Major (Group), Lt Col (Wing), Colonel (Region), MGen (National) with their deputy/vice one grade below. They revert to their permanent grade after their command tour (3-4 years) is completed. This avoids the confusion over who is in charge we create by awarding grade based primarily on completion of training and TIG.  I think an organization where,  for all practical purposes, 2d Lt is the entry level grade isn't taken very seriously, even by our own membership, much less other agencies. Everyone would join as an E-1 and only after training and time (TIG) would be advanced in grade. Maybe a better organization to compare ourselves to is LE. Would you expect to be promoted to lieutenant in the Highway Patrol after completing basic training and doing your job for six months? No, of course not. Perfectly ok  for you to start off as a Patrolman, or whatever they may be called. It could be 20 years and many tests and lots of training before you get to lieutenant and those positions are competitive and come with command responsibilities.

2. Exceptions to the above for members receiving professional appointments: a) only for those specialties that are recognized by USAF for officer grade, AND b) have a significant role to play in CAP AND c) are actively assigned to and performing that role. The only one's I can think of relevent to CAP are Chaplain and Legal. Educators, CPA's, etc don't meet all of the above criteria (namely commissions in USAF for being a teacher, CPA, etc.). Regardless of training, experience and education, all professional appointments start as 2d Lt and are promoted once TIG is reached and satisfactory performance up to Captain and stops there. If they step down from their position, they revert to a permanent grade of E-1 unless they are otherwise eligible for advanced grade by completing promotion requirements appropriate to that grade (see #3 and #4)..

3. Reinstate Warrant Officer grade for other mission related skills that we need to recruit and retain people to do, such as pilot. Everyone would start as WO-1 regardless of level of certificate and would then be advanced based on time in grade and mission participation. Certificate level (CFI, for example) could waive some training/experience, but not TIG. An A&P could be advanced, for example, to an advanced enlisted grade after appropriate TIG, without completing any other training as long as they are performing a job requiring that skill in CAP.

4. Everyone else starts as enlisted. Again, specific skills could waive training requirements, but not TIG so everyone promotes at a reasonable rate. Top enlisted grade would be E-7 (to avoid aggravating any Air Force chief's out there in the top two grades).

5. Not sure what training program to use, but existing Level 1-5 could be adapted as well as AF PME courses, in addition to other ongoing discussions on this board which have been proposed.

6. Lastly, Officer of Armed Forces promotion: how to address issue where someone was a General in USAF and joins CAP as an E-1... Well, two ways. 1) Point out grade structure looks like USAF, but is NOT the same thing. Or 2) allow former officers to continue wearing their last grade held BUT get approval from USAF to have them wear their USAF uniform while serving in CAP. They would be placed in a special membership category like Advisor. They could hold any/all CAP positions, but senior officers would be assigned to HQ units. Distinguish them from active duty by having them wear a badge, similar to what AF JROTC/ROTC Officers/NCO's wear. CAP-USAF (liaison regions) would have to approve assignments of former USAF Officers/enlisted joining CAP in this capacity. That should take care of that, except not sure what to do with Army, Navy, Marine etc officers/senior enlisted.

7. Phase-in period of 2-3 years during which existing members can retain current grade in CAP and complete training as appropriate to the new structure. New members, or those transitioning sooner, would wear new grade insignia. Maybe we can get different colored epaulets to denote members holding grade under the new program, then phase out the gray?

John Aylesworth
Commander, PCR-CA-151
Report to moderator   Logged
John Aylesworth, Lt Col CAP
IC Coordinator, HQ CAWG
SAR/DR MP, Master Observer
Earhart #1139 FEB 1982
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #21 on: January 06, 2007, 04:11:44 PM »

jay, I would go along with almost all your proposals. 

Your solution to the prior-service officer problem is one that I haven't heard before and is definetely worth thinking about.  One issue that I can see is prior-service officers who no longer even come close to the active/reserve physical requirements for uniform wear.  The services will probably not want the 75 year old former Lt. Col. who is 50 pounds overweight wearing one of their uniforms.  One solution would be to tell prior service that they can keep their old rank and wear their service's uniform only if they meet the service's height/weight requirements.  If they can't they would have to join and start out like everybody else. 

Having these folks wear their actual service uniforms could possibly lead to confusion among the public as to whether they are acting as a CAP member or as a member of their service.  A reporter might wonder why somebody in a Marine uniform is flying a CAP/USAF Aux airplane on a mission. 

One solution is to get very parochial and just let former AF officers continue to wear the AF uniform.  After all, we are the AF's auxiliary. 
Report to moderator   Logged
jayleswo
Forum Regular

Posts: 131
Unit: PCR-CA-001

« Reply #22 on: January 06, 2007, 04:40:26 PM »

River, understand about the USAF allowing former officers/enlisted to wear their uniform if they don't meet current requirements. I think AFI 36-2903 has criteria for retired and veterans wearing USAF uniform. We would just ask USAF to allow service in CAP to be added to the list of circumstances they can wear it, again, with CAP-USAF approval for each individual. I am sure something in their regs allows for AF JROTC/ROTC aerospace instructors to wear AF uniform, so we would be going for something similar.

The thing I also wanted to mention about some of the feedback to the excellent proposals I have been reading from John and Dennis and others.... I've got quite a few years in management and the best way to never achieve a goal is to go for the 100% solution that encompasses all of the edge cases. I think an 80% solution should be workable and implementable. It's the last 20% that usually takes the most time to resolve and some of those issues are just never resolvable. So, don't worry about the last 10-20% beyond a certain point. Move forward! I really like the positive and constructive flavor to what I am reading on these threads towards an improved CAP. Thanks!

John Aylesworth
Commander, PCR-CA-151
Report to moderator   Logged
John Aylesworth, Lt Col CAP
IC Coordinator, HQ CAWG
SAR/DR MP, Master Observer
Earhart #1139 FEB 1982
JohnKachenmeister
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,352

« Reply #23 on: January 06, 2007, 04:44:29 PM »

And I remembered that right after I posted.  Sorry.
Report to moderator   Logged
Another former CAP officer
Chaplaindon
Seasoned Member

Posts: 235

« Reply #24 on: January 06, 2007, 05:26:23 PM »

Friends, I appreciate all that you are trying to do CONSTRUCTIVELY to effect change: I pray that it is not Quixotic -- CAP needs to change.

As a long-time member, I would endorse a move to the NGB both for its inherent understanding of dual-role service ... even though the Bible has Jesus preaching that you cannot serve two masters (money and God) ... we do it all the time in CAP (and sometimes more than 2 masters/"customers" -- prehaps that's why the NOC always seems so muddled?). The NG likewise does this multi-mastered-service routinely and understands its complexities. Furthermore, they are state-identified entities, just as are CAP WG's and eschelons below. The NG and CAP --although national in scope and deployable all over-- really are "neighbors serving neighbors (and neighbors serving along side neighbors).

It's a good marriage.

One additional comment that I would make has to do with requirements for grade. I strongly believe that "commissioned" officers (those 2nd Lt and above) in CAP should possess a bachelors degree or above, from an "accredited" university (transcript required).

Doubtless, there would be a place for prior-service officers (up to Lt Col, as before and professional appointments IAW USAF, ANG, AFRES practices --e.g. RN's w/BSN, MD's, JD's, clergy). All of these already possess at least a 4-year degree.

If "warrant" grades are reintroduced (which I doubt as they are too dissimilar to the USAF, ANG, or AFRES) those individuals should possess normatively a 2-year degree as well as a needed technical/operational skill (e.g. private pilot --with mission/orientation pilot-level experience (or higher), communication technician --beyond amateur licensure, medical (non-BSN RN or maybe Paramedic).

Others (e.g. Basic EMTs or Paramedics w/o 2-year degree, LVNs, amateur radio operators, private pilots lacking adequate experience for SARDR or O-flights or sufficient post-secondary education --see above--, etc.) all would be assigned to the "enlisted" grades --perhaps with some advance placement to, say, E-5 or so.

Those lacking any such skills/education would start at E-1. It seems incongruous to me to promtote them otherwise. They would have no useful operational skill. They have a general education and they have no prior service. They are pure "potential" yet to be realized. Pinning a "bar" or stripes on that person would be silly.

Earn as you learn is the right way.

Officer and enlisted/NCO advancement would involve USAF or NGB as well as CAP PME (for example to make O-5, I suggest one complete ASCS, and for O-6, AWC non-residence). Who knows, with a closer relationship with our state ANG, maybe our officers could take the PME seminars with the ANG RLO's. Currently CAPR's prohibit all but the dreary correspondence ones.

Furthermore all entering personnel would receive some basic training consistent with their background (prior service or not ... for example) and their intended position and duty. All would receive some degree of security screening and a REAL ID card.

Although higher education does not fully define a person, by any means, I have seen/heard CAP O-6's --WG Kings, no less-- who spoke and or wrote like hillbillies. CAP will never be seen as professionals with its leaders appearing illiterate or uneducated.

To be seen as professionals we need not only wear the uniform correctly, but we need to speak and write and present ourselves as professionals, whether officer, NCO, enlisted. To that end, education matters.



Report to moderator   Logged
Rev. Don Brown, Ch., Lt Col, CAP (Ret.)
Former Deputy Director for CISM at CAP/HQ
Gill Robb Wilson Award # 1660
Flotilla Commander & ACS Chaplain, USCG Auxliary
Chaplaindon
Seasoned Member

Posts: 235

« Reply #25 on: January 06, 2007, 05:30:47 PM »

I meant "ACSC" not ASCS ... sorry.
Report to moderator   Logged
Rev. Don Brown, Ch., Lt Col, CAP (Ret.)
Former Deputy Director for CISM at CAP/HQ
Gill Robb Wilson Award # 1660
Flotilla Commander & ACS Chaplain, USCG Auxliary
JohnKachenmeister
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,352

« Reply #26 on: January 06, 2007, 08:11:39 PM »

Thank you for your kind words, Chaplain.

Your proposal for use of warrant grades (We have flight officers now, so I don't see it as a major organizational shift) is precisely what the Army does with respcet to warrant officers.  Commissioned officers are managers the warrant officers are technicians.  I'd like to see if that would work.

So, we'd run it like this:

Commissioned officers:  Bachelor degree + Officer Training School = 2nd Lt.
(Could we live with 2 years of college + 2 years responsible full-time work and approval of a board as being the same as a BS/BA?  That might give us some flexibility when we are short of commissioned officers.)

Warrant Officers:  Pilots, Paramedics, RN's, Communications technicians, and A&P mechanics with less than a BS/BA/BSN.  They would also go through OTS, and follow along with the same PD requirements, except that they would advance in the warrant ranks (W-1 through W-5) unless they achieved a degree.  Get a degree... lateral to the appropriate commissioned rank as determined by your PD level.

--  I would include in this category former cadets who have the Mitchell or higher.  We got to take care of our own!

Enlisted:  Everybody else, except that once past a basic training period, EMT's and other needed civilian specialties would get SSG.

Makes sense to me.
Report to moderator   Logged
Another former CAP officer
ZigZag911
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,988

« Reply #27 on: January 06, 2007, 09:55:18 PM »

OK, folks, since we're talking grade structure, I am attaching a paper I wrote during the letter months of 2006....it expresses ideas I've been kicking around and developing with some CAP colleagues (including a retired USAFR officer and a retired USAR E-9) for about 5 years.

Some of the courses mentioned, particularly those for NCOs, do not exist and would need to be developed.

This is a starting place for discussion, not a perfect plan engraved in stone!

* 2006 SENIOR GRADES.doc (115 kB - downloaded 14 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
Chaplaindon
Seasoned Member

Posts: 235

« Reply #28 on: January 06, 2007, 10:37:29 PM »

John,

I'll concur with your modification (2 yrs versus 4) but with a caveat --something to, hopefully motivate folks toward further education-- a commissioned officer would be limited (e.g. a "Limited Duty Officer" if you will) to no more than 1st Lt --perhaps Capt-- w/o a 4 yr degree.

Otherwise I think your on to something. Mind you, one bugaboo of mine is that non-operationally qualified pilots NOT receive special consideration for grade. They may have a PPL but w/o suffient hours PIC, etc., to fly as PIC on SAR/DR ops or O-Flights they are of very limited use to the organization.

Just having a PPL (or EVEN an A&P license) shouldn't automatically equal 2nd Lt (or more).
Report to moderator   Logged
Rev. Don Brown, Ch., Lt Col, CAP (Ret.)
Former Deputy Director for CISM at CAP/HQ
Gill Robb Wilson Award # 1660
Flotilla Commander & ACS Chaplain, USCG Auxliary
TDHenderson
Member

Posts: 88

« Reply #29 on: January 06, 2007, 10:44:45 PM »

My $.02 in regards to the Grade Stucture is to leave it alone and concentrate on increasing the quality of our Professional Development and Emergency Services training so we can provide the Nation with a better product.  I also believe that targeting recruiting along with improvements in new member screening will lead to a better CAP.
Report to moderator   Logged
JohnKachenmeister
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,352

« Reply #30 on: January 07, 2007, 12:50:18 AM »

Trevor.

I thought that's what we were doing.  Unless we have our officer strength that exhibits the quality approaching a military commissioned officer, we're spinning our wheels trying to catch up.  Part of that is raising the standards to earn CAP officer rank.

And, Chaplain, I suggest warrant grade for all pilots out of tradition.   
Report to moderator   Logged
Another former CAP officer
BillB
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,987

« Reply #31 on: January 07, 2007, 01:05:03 AM »

This looks good except, I can see we will have a pot full of people in the Flight Officer grades.
Report to moderator   Logged
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104
arajca
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,368

« Reply #32 on: January 07, 2007, 01:23:43 AM »

Too ES based.

If you're not into ES, you stop as SrA.

Mission Manager does not exist. Do you mean Incident Commander? If so, you'll have a bunch of low grade folks because CAP's requirements for IC are such that only a handful per wing would qualify.
Report to moderator   Logged
JohnKachenmeister
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,352

« Reply #33 on: January 07, 2007, 02:49:21 AM »

This looks good except, I can see we will have a pot full of people in the Flight Officer grades.

Bill:

OK, I'll grant you that.  Is that a problem? 

W/O's in the Army can command small units within their specialty, why can't our F/O's?

For groups/wings/regions/CAP overall, why would we not expect to have a college graduate if our goal is to improve our officer corps?

Bill, I got your e-mail.  I can hear your brain hitting the walls of the box all the way here in Viera.  The plan I came up with for the units is completely out of the box.  Forget the current senior/cadet/composite arrangements.  These units are based on function, not personnel.  The have to be mutually supportive, and as such, the stand-alone squadron has to go.  Follow my thinking for just a moment.

Our situation:

We are basically not doing much of anything CAP-wide in AE, other than the cadet program.  Congress made that one of our missions.  We can't just abandon it because we're too busy and can't think of anything to do.

Some units are doing fine on the cadet program.  Others are "Composite" units with 4 cadets.  How does one run the cadet program and give leadership experience when there are 4 cadets?

Some units excel at ES, some pencil-whip the standards, some ignore the program altogether. 

Then, between wing and NHQ, we lay a ton of administrative burdens on a local commander, such that we have trouble finding people with the time and the stomach for the job.  We end up giving command of a unit to 2nd Lt. Soccermom, and tell her to read the regs, because she was dumb enough to accept command without knowing what she was getting into. Then, she burns out, leaves the program, and dumps the problems on the next fool.

My goal in suggesting a change to the way we organize units is to reduce the admin. burden on commanders, and let commanders focus on 1 mission, relying on their sister units to provide training and resources for the other missions of CAP.
Report to moderator   Logged
Another former CAP officer
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #34 on: January 07, 2007, 03:03:06 AM »

You know we might take a page from the CG Aux here.  They actually have way, way more programs that they can be implementing than does CAP.  They have just about as many staff officers per flotilla but in most of those cases the staff officer is actually implementing a fairly unique program.  So, there is exactly the same potentiall for over-burdening the leadership with varioius reports. 

You know how they solve it?  There really aren't any unit-level reports required.  Instead, each CG Auxie is supposed to report any time spent participating in any of the programs.  All of this is input into a national database and anytime someone wants to know how many classes have been taught, boats inspected, etc. they can pull it up from the database. 

How does this work at the unit level?  Well, basically if the guy in charge of the Marine Safety program is doing something and reporting correctly it shows up in the database.  If he isn't doing anything  or isn't reporting it correctly or if there isn't anybody else doing it in that flotilla there is a big goose-egg in that column of the database. 

So, what happens is that similar to CAP each CG Aux flotilla focuses on different things depending on the interests of its members which may change over time.  There is some pressure to put people in each slot, but if they aren't doing anything EVERYBODY knows it.  There isn't any duty on the part of the flotilla commander to send in a report for the marine safety department to the Division. 

The other thing to realize is that each CG Aux member may be participating in and reporting their activities in multiple programs.  So, even if there isn't a Marine Safety staff officer in my flotilla, if for some reason I do some Marine Safety activity it would be my responsibility to report those hours. 

Now, mostly the system only reports hours of effort.  For some program there are concrete task accomplishments entered into the system. 

Would this work for CAP?  Probably not very well since quite a few CAP reports are those that need to be done, and if by no-one else, fall on the commander.  However, I expect many could be reduced to check boxes on a web-based form that could be done very quickly.   
Report to moderator   Logged
Chaplaindon
Seasoned Member

Posts: 235

« Reply #35 on: January 07, 2007, 12:31:31 PM »

John,

I basically concur with your suggestion " ... warrant grade for all pilots out of tradition" provided that they possess either full operational (SAR/DR or O-Flight) level flying experience --- say a PPL + 200 hours PIC minimum (a completed CAPF-5) and at least a high school diploma.

I know thast presently the USA wants some college (40-60 hours min, I think) to qualify for WOC status.

CAP Pilots with PPL but below 200 hours PIC w/o 40/60 hours post-secondary educational experience would be SSgt. However, as soon as the pilot either obtains 200 hours PIC or a minimum level of post-secondary education, and a current CAPF-5, they are eligible for an immediate promotion to WO1.

A 200+ hrs SAR/DR-level pilot without a high school diploma (or equivilency) would also be a SSgt. Perhaps we could, as did the Army in (briefly) in WWII --and as did the RAF-- and allow for a few "flying sergeants."

This would encourage pilots --like everyone else-- to become qualified and operational and to keep learning and training. It would also reinforce that education ... not just PME ... matters; in the military, in CAP and in the world.

I am also a pliot (below 200 hrs PIC, too) and concerned that if we allow too much leeway for pilots (just because they are pilots regardless of whether they can/will actually fly a CAP aircraft or possess adequate experience and qualifications to be operationally useful to CAP) it will establish a precedence that will "slide" toward an open (qualifications not needed) officer corps -- and we'll be right back where we are now ... Level-1 and 6 months and you're a 2nd Lt: regardless of whether you are literate or qualified/competent to do anything except sign a check for your yearly dues.

John, thanks for all you're doing to try and improve CAP.
Report to moderator   Logged
Rev. Don Brown, Ch., Lt Col, CAP (Ret.)
Former Deputy Director for CISM at CAP/HQ
Gill Robb Wilson Award # 1660
Flotilla Commander & ACS Chaplain, USCG Auxliary
JohnKachenmeister
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,352

« Reply #36 on: January 07, 2007, 02:03:20 PM »

John,

I basically concur with your suggestion " ... warrant grade for all pilots out of tradition" provided that they possess either full operational (SAR/DR or O-Flight) level flying experience --- say a PPL + 200 hours PIC minimum (a completed CAPF-5) and at least a high school diploma.

I know thast presently the USA wants some college (40-60 hours min, I think) to qualify for WOC status.

CAP Pilots with PPL but below 200 hours PIC w/o 40/60 hours post-secondary educational experience would be SSgt. However, as soon as the pilot either obtains 200 hours PIC or a minimum level of post-secondary education, and a current CAPF-5, they are eligible for an immediate promotion to WO1.

A 200+ hrs SAR/DR-level pilot without a high school diploma (or equivilency) would also be a SSgt. Perhaps we could, as did the Army in (briefly) in WWII --and as did the RAF-- and allow for a few "flying sergeants."

This would encourage pilots --like everyone else-- to become qualified and operational and to keep learning and training. It would also reinforce that education ... not just PME ... matters; in the military, in CAP and in the world.

I am also a pliot (below 200 hrs PIC, too) and concerned that if we allow too much leeway for pilots (just because they are pilots regardless of whether they can/will actually fly a CAP aircraft or possess adequate experience and qualifications to be operationally useful to CAP) it will establish a precedence that will "slide" toward an open (qualifications not needed) officer corps -- and we'll be right back where we are now ... Level-1 and 6 months and you're a 2nd Lt: regardless of whether you are literate or qualified/competent to do anything except sign a check for your yearly dues.

John, thanks for all you're doing to try and improve CAP.

I don't have figures to support this, but I strongly suspect you will not find very many private pilots with educational levels somewhere south of high school.  High school dropouts normally do not find themselves in jobs that provide an income sufficient to pay for flying, and those who lack the endurance to make it through high school would similarly lack the endurance to complete the pilot training curriculum.

I'll have to disagree with you on the pilot qualification.  "Flying sergeants" have not been around anywhere since the late 50's I think.  I would grant F/O rank along with wings:  Private ticket+OTS+Form 5 ride = Flight Officer.  As F/O pilots, they can work on their 50 hours XC to qualify as transport mission pilots, and build time toward O-Flight and mission qualification.  In the meantime, they can train cadets in aerospace topics and assist at O-flights by walking cadets through the pre-flight inspection, so its not like they're totally useless.

And, considering the economics of aviation (Sometimes I wish I developed a cocaine habit instead of a flying habit... cocaine is cheaper and there is less government interference!) we are talking about a very small group of people who would be pilots with less than 2 years of college.  Unless they are former cadets, in which case they would get F/O anyway on their Mitchells.
Report to moderator   Logged
Another former CAP officer
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #37 on: January 07, 2007, 04:59:59 PM »

You know I have seen a fair number of new pilots come into CAP with 50-100 hours of time but I don't think any of them have ever actually accumulated enough time to become mission pilots yet. 
Report to moderator   Logged
ZigZag911
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,988

« Reply #38 on: January 07, 2007, 05:17:57 PM »

Too ES based.

If you're not into ES, you stop as SrA.

Mission Manager does not exist. Do you mean Incident Commander? If so, you'll have a bunch of low grade folks because CAP's requirements for IC are such that only a handful per wing would qualify.

"Mission Manager" is used as a catchall term for ICs, Ops & Planning Section Chiefs, AOBD/GBD, Finance-Admin Section Chiefs, Comm Unit Leader, Safety Officer, Mission IO, Flight Line Supervisor, Mission Chaplain....I think that about covers it.

The plan does not envision (or require) everyone being "into" ES, but does stress that all adult members  should have certain fundamental qualifications to enable them to assist in a broad-based disaster situation (terrorist attack aftermath, Katrina-type natural disaster).

Not everyone needs to be involved in ES all the time....but I would rather not have people as members who were unwilling (to the extent of their ability) to pitch in when really needed.

Report to moderator   Logged
JohnKachenmeister
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,352

« Reply #39 on: January 07, 2007, 05:46:41 PM »

You know I have seen a fair number of new pilots come into CAP with 50-100 hours of time but I don't think any of them have ever actually accumulated enough time to become mission pilots yet. 

Right, River.

But the discusion was on basic standards for officer rank.  If a person had an Associate degree or two years of college, he/she would have achieved the threshhold for comissioned rank, according to our plan.  This would be regardless of pilot status.  A person with less than two years of university education, but with a technical skill such as pilot, would be brought in (after OTS) as a Flight Officer.

Chaplain Don's contention is that only 200+ hour pilots should be given flight officer status.  My contention is that all pilots with a private license be brought in as F/O's, regardless of number of hours.  Former cadets with Mitchell and higher would also be appointed as F/O's, so the persons who earned their wings as cadets would not be effected.

So the discussion centers around a population group of low-time private pilots with less than 2 years of college who did not come through the cadet program.  I contend that such a population group is so small as to not warrant serious regulatory attention.
Report to moderator   Logged
Another former CAP officer
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: Paper: Structural Change, etc
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.067 seconds with 26 queries.
click here to email me