Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 19, 2019, 05:58:01 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: Paper: Structural Change, etc
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 Send this topic Print
Author Topic: Paper: Structural Change, etc  (Read 15278 times)
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« on: January 05, 2007, 04:40:03 AM »

READ BEFORE YOU POST:
This thread is for collaboration in an effort to develop a paper for publication based on the conversation from the 4Jan Conf call.

The objective is to produce a unified vision for CAP for the consideration of outside sources (NB, AWC, Air Staff, NGB, AF publications, etc - then ultimately on to interested members of congress). Please limit discussion to the topics at hand. That being where CAP belongs (strategic partner(s)); scope & nature of missions possible & sought; internal change to membership to function within such missions; accountability/consistency/leadership... governance structure & how it flows from the rest. We will present a picture of what we for the most part agree on, and then a series/spectrum of options for things we vary on.

STAY FOCUSED!!

Contributions are welcomed, regardless if you were a presenter or not, or if you've been in 30 years or 30 days, just stop for a minute, think it thru, do your research, THEN post positive professional contributions. There's a lot of other threads for other things, leave them off this one - if you have a point of order, take it to another thread or leave it be -> STAY FOCUSED!!

That said, let-er roll. I'd like to give chance to comment for the people that didn't get a chance to participate, then John, Nick, & I will come in, then we can all teamwork this thing out... we'll set a deadline, but I'm thinking a week.

The resulting paper will go to heavy hitters in & out of CAP as well as a wide range of active & retired people of several services (Active, Guard, Reserve). Please keep in mind that we will be presenting CPA in a good light & trying to drive conversation toward positive change. We all look forward to the outstanding contributions of our fellow professionals!!!! Please don't be shy!
Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,983

« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2007, 01:33:38 PM »

I would recommend that the paper be as specific as possible when making recommendations.  For example, if you're going to recommend that CAP members receive federal job protections, you include a copy of the current federal codes that would apply along with your suggested changes that would add in CAP.  The same would go for changes in CAP/AF or other regulations. 

Each recommendation, or subrecommendation, should be numbered and/or lettered.  If the recommendation is to "Increase professionalism of CAP Officers" that would be Recc #1 and if there were 10 specific changes to implement this they would be 1a, 1b, etc. 
Report to moderator   Logged
DrJbdm
Seasoned Member

Posts: 380

« Reply #2 on: January 05, 2007, 09:35:40 PM »

 The information presented last night was very informative. Here's my thoughts:

  DNall, both you and John are very close on this issue and it boils down it seems to who has main control over us, NGB or 1st AF.  I know we are currently under AETC, and while that may make some sense for the AE or CP programs, it makes no sense for our operational programs (ES/DR) but neither AE/CP is the main focus of CAP nor should they be. Our main focus is ES/DR or at least it should be. That being said we need to put a study group together to study the jobs/missions that 1st AF and NGB/ANG does, and what jobs with in that framework can we augment with them. Then we need to first define our image and our standards to meet those jobs before presenting ourselves to either entity.

  I personally think that Johns plan works best for us, simply because NGB already has an innate understanding of the duality that we face. i.e.: Title 10 and title 36 missions and they might be more willing to accept us more readily. The NG accepts to some degree or another their SDF, and yes the SDFs at least here in Texas had to raise their Officer standards a lot higher and so they decided to adopt the same standards (including age restrictions) as the NG in order to start getting some acceptance. So it seems to me that if we would raise our image and our professional standards to at least 50% or better yet 75% of ANG they would probably be a bit more willing to accept us and work with us as partners then say 1st AF. (1st AF would take a lot longer to accept us, then ANG in my opinion. look at our past screw-ups with AF for proof of that fractured relationship.

  The other issue on why I think Johns plan is a bit better for us is in part thanks to the fantastic relationship that Iowa wing has built with their NG...the framework has already been started. My squadron has a fantastic relationship with the NG here in Austin; it wouldn't take much to convince them to give us a shot. Besides being with NGB might make it easier for us to receive the same federal job protections that the ANG enjoys.

  As for structure; I think the BOG is a great idea, But they need to be given more oversight authority and they should really in my opinion replace the NEC. The NB should be the idea people who present proposals for change to the BOG i.e.: uniforms, policy, procedures ect. The NB should be made up of the Wing Commanders and a 1st SGT type elected rep from every Wing. Rework the concept of region commanders; I'm not sure they would be a huge asset to us under Johns plan except maybe as the go between for CP or AE between Wing and National. They would only get in the way if they also covered ES/DR. The Structure in my opinion would work as such:

        SecAF

          BOG

          NB
         
         National CC...................
                                              .
                                            Staff
          WING

         Group

         Squadron

    Sorry, if it's a bit confusing. in a sense the BOG reports to SecAF and crafts his wishes or desires into a functional mission for CAP. The BOG would be made up of reps from AF/CAP/NGB. The BOG is responsible for setting qualification requirements for General Officers as well as for Colonels. The BOG should also confirm all appointments to those positions as well as perhaps confirm all initial field grade officer promotions.

 I may have missed a few things but this covers my thoughts on it fairly well. Hope it helps.
Report to moderator   Logged
SAR-EMT1
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,502
Unit: GLR-IL-328

« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2007, 10:32:31 PM »

I was a cadet for several years then went to college and was an AFROTC cadet. Got medical'd out (cancelled waiver) and am now back in CAP as a 1LT-SM -Ive got SLS etc, but Im just 21. So Im young, stupid and rash. :)
---------
Now I know AFROTC doesnt count for much but even in the few short years I learned more about leadership and effective communication then I EVER did in CAP. point being:

1)    CAP should have an updated program for seniors in regards to pme both in house and out of house --(even with the footnotes the old ECI13-AFIADL 00013 is so out of date and poorly written a retired Army Command Sar. Maj. in my squadron refused to believe it hadnt ben corrected and wanted the Sq/CC to order him the 'corrected edition' -- for myself: as someone who dearly would have loved to have been on active duty, I value that the AF is allowing us the ability to enroll in SOS ACSC etc...

 I am not openning up the old "what is CAP can of worms" For the  sake of this thread i will simply say that we are a "professional organization staffed by vollunteers". -Point being Corporate side or AF side regardless our Professionalism should have strong roots in training/education programs be they military OR a civilian college stype class in bus. managment.
A) Personally Id like to see CAP develop a course whereby we conduct an in house -corporate like sls/clc- course restructured to include sections specifically geared to bus. managment AND the FEMA/ESDA course :"operations and leadership in nonprofit/vollunteer organizations"

This will be done in a weekend or 2 as SLS/CLC are done now. Pair it up with a revised course 13 - possibly rewritten by the USAF-CAP staff or possibly assigned as the first project of the" NCO corps" -again not trying to start something, just an idea: it would give this group a defined mission to give it birth.

2) NATIONAL VISION: It is my understanding that There is no PUBLISHED vision statement. I however feel that this should not only be tasked to the MG in command but a joint statment by MG pineda AND the USAF-CAP CC
This would allow a statment to be made to the effect that NOT ONLY do we the CAP membership and other organizations know where we are headed BUT would allow the USAF Col. to state precisely HOW the USAF (and 1st AF) will utilize this vision to their advantage.
 Example : CAP CC: "CAP will strive to exploit any opportunities in expanding our use to HLS missions".  USAF CC: "To this end the CAP-USAF team is working with 1st AF to make others more aware of your abilities."

3) EXPANDED OPERATIONS IN RELATION TO OTHERS
To this end increase the authority we have in relation to events . Im NOT suggesting self deployment or anything BUT, what abot something like Katrina? Is there a plan in place in NHQ or FEMA or anywhere that would DESCRIBE a process of alerting and deploying members nationwide/cross country?  To that end:
A) CAP Ops will study notification/deployment options availible to other organizations.  
B) An Effort is needed work to update the ops task guides to reflect new ICS procedures, and other intra-organizational measures. (Such as radio procedures commonly used by groups we might come in contact with)
But also invite a group of AD ES experts to the table to review and suggest updates.

4) ASSISTANCE TO AD/ANG/RESERVE UNITS: I reviewed AFI 10 2701 but I cannot find any information in regs (or KB) as to what assistance CAP can give to the USAF outside of SAR etc.. specifically I once heard that CAP SMs have served as assistants at AF recruiting stations (cant find reg) I know that CAP Chaplains have served military units as chaplains. (found info on KB but no reg)
POINT BEING: INCREASE OUR USE TO THE AIR FORCE: I once read the following in a previous thread on warning orders:
Quote:
Per Titles 10 and 36, USC; CAP members on AFAM (Air Force Assigned Mission)status are assets deemed an instrumentality of the United States Air Force by the Secretary of the Air Force. AFAux-CAP is authorized, (when directed by the Secretary of the Air Force) to fulfill non-combat mission of the Air Force.  ( USAF Doctrine Doc 2-10; 21 March 2006, Joint Publication 3-26, Joint Doctrine for Homeland Security).

A) Why not expand our use (to units) other then just chaplain and recruiting support? Is there any way we can get CAP IGs and Personnel Officers in to assist with Military IG and Personnel Flights etc? I know that CAP maintains a comm net and wonder if it is possible for CAP Comm Officers to asssist with Base Comms etc... do you see where Im going with this? Now I am NOT saying all of us are qualified for this, and Im not saying I am. But develop a training program stating how I could and Ill tackle it immediately.

B) THE USCG-Aux. (Im a member and Division staff officer) Grants a security clearence to its members (after a background check etc) and Ill be the first to admit its a basic clearence.( I had to chance to serve on a cutter as an EMT for several months...wish Id taken it) They also have better exchange/commissary privileges then CAP does. AND THEY WEAR AD CG ribbions.
I know that CAP established a FOUO PPT slideshow etc. But that is hardly the same thing. (Im guessing here, Im not involved in HLS, CD etc)   So I encourage that our Clearences and 'X' privileges be increased. I ALSO ask that CAP be authorized to EARN/Wear AD AF ribbions examples: (from an earlier thread: posted by Dnall)
How about the other end of this, the recommendation thru CAP-USAF to SECAF for award of AF decorations for service to the AF by CAP members?

These are awardable to civilians for non-combat AF missions:
Aerial Achievement Medal (this is roughly the non-combat version of the air medal)
AF Achievement Medal
AF Outstanding Unit Award (for something like Katrina where CGAux got a presidential unit citation - the AF version requires combat)
AF Organizational Excellence Award (same sort of thing as above)
AF Recognition Ribbon (for something like national senior member of the year)

These also are non-combat, but specify AF personnel, but you could argue a case for CAP members on AFAM if you wanted to & some are appropriate:
Airmanís Medal
Meritorious Service
AF Commendation Medal
Humanitarian Service Medal
Military Outstanding Volunteer Service
Note: I didn't put Distinguished Service or Legion of Merit on the non-combat list cause those really seem off the page IMO. I could see some of these other ones though.

I am sorry, Im not good with reg searches and I apoligize for this being long and somewhat helter skelter; I am new to this board.
Thank you for your time, and let me know how I can improve/streamline this post.
Report to moderator   Logged
C. A. Edgar
AUX USCG Flotilla 8-8
Former CC / GLR-IL-328
Firefighter, Paramedic, Grad Student
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,983

« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2007, 10:54:57 PM »

Just to be clear, the CG Aux does not grant security clearances.  All members undergo a basic background check done by DHS similar to that undergone by CAP members.  Some CG Aux members are required to do a more extensive background check similar to what people undergo when they join the military.  If everything checks out you receive a "favorable determination".  That in itself is not a clearance.  However, if you are in a position, say augmenting a CG Cutter, for which a clearance is required, it is fairly simple for the CG officer commanding the unit to request that you receive an actual security clearance.   
Report to moderator   Logged
SAR-EMT1
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,502
Unit: GLR-IL-328

« Reply #5 on: January 06, 2007, 12:20:56 AM »

Thank you for the clarification.
Report to moderator   Logged
C. A. Edgar
AUX USCG Flotilla 8-8
Former CC / GLR-IL-328
Firefighter, Paramedic, Grad Student
JohnKachenmeister
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,352

« Reply #6 on: January 06, 2007, 12:37:55 AM »

Your post was just fine, Lieutenant.
Report to moderator   Logged
Another former CAP officer
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #7 on: January 06, 2007, 01:31:16 AM »

Sorry long.... try to cover a lot of subjects. Be patient with this one.

Security Clearence
Anyone in the mil or familiar w/ clearances would understand this better. Basically CGAux does a very basic "pre-secret" level investigation, which is barely more than what you do to join CAP/CGAux now - I think you list some references, where you've lived, job history; they call your refs is about all. Now in the mil if your clearance expires & you need it to do your job, start a school, or some such, then your commander writes a letter that grants a temp clearance on his word till the formal comes thru. That's basically what CGAux is doing is just enough investigation that a CG unit commander can sign a letter on you to cover while you're doing the work. Basically he's taking personal responsibility under his clearance that you won't sell the freqs to China or something. The investigation (if you can call it that) just gives him enough cover to do that. Something very similiar would be appropriate for CAP, especially since we deal with cadets.

Ref our OPSEC course... should adopt AF's new IAAP in addition to that.

PD/PME: Force Transformation  (this is a side issue falling under tools to accomplish the big picture we're discussing).
AFIADL13 is not terrible. I wish I could show you the Pre-RCOT (res commissioned officer trng - OTS for Docs & such) online material. It's moved around somewhere now, maybe behind a password, I haven't found it again after they moved it... anyway, it's basically the same thing as AFIADL13, a touch better in some places, not as good on comm I don't think, but that's cause they spend so much time on comm in the actual in-res course. Lot better presentation format though. AFIADL13 is not bad, it just need to be updated & slammed into a totally revamped Lvl 1 that everyone needs to take...

Now if you talk to me any longer then that, you'll find I think that should be the standard to move you from AB when you join to Amn. Modified version of our existing senior program moves you up thru TSgt - work w/ our new CCM to make sure Real NCOs are satisfied with those standards & the progression system. MSgt to CMSgt goes to prior service -OR- member elected 1Sgts who work like an adult version of CAC. Top national guy in that program is CCM & sits on BoG.

For officer... start with a BS (waiver w/ associates -AND- prior-service/EMT/Pilot/hamm/etc -OR- 2yrs business/supervisory exp similiar to staff functions); write an essay, & 3-5 letters of rec... send that package to a 5 man board (incl state director rep'ing for AF standards)... that gets you into the training....

Aux OTS would run at your pace but min one year. Combination of DVD/online modules & close mentor guidance. Modules based on real OTS as much as possible (video of real classes, real online content, etc), sub in the CAP-specific for the AF-specific (we don't need to know how WAPS or APRs, can skip some UCMJ, etc). When you & your mentor feel like you're done, then submit back to that same board to concur & make you 2Lt.

After that it runs real close to AF... CAP Basic Course kind of like ASBC... point being to convert the theory stuff to that warrior/mission-centric/motivated can-do attitude & actually leading people. That & a tech plus 18 months gets you 1Lt. Capt is pretty automatic also, all these get signed off by the board, not your Gp/Wg/Reg CC so hopefully de-politicize it a bit. Then SOS, ACSC, AWC run thru the field officer grades. All these TIGs linked to AF progression standards. I don't know yet if we should limit the number of slots in each wing at each grade. I wouldn't think overall numbers to people get blocked out unless senior officers leave, but maybe a limit per year in each grade based on per capita of the Wg. It needs work in a joint-study group w/ AU & CAP.

The overall goal here being to make these officer real leaders, who are 80% as capable as real officers, & able to be interoperable with real officers in say a disaster ICS model,  where it's concievable (once we're NIMS compliant) that a CAP officer might be in a superior ICS staff position giving tasking orders to say paid emergency responders or NG teams out in the field - the same kind of position you'd expect to see a guard or reserve officer in now. Once you transform to that kind of force, then the limits of the missions we're handed & the confidence in us to do VERY important things becomes exponsential.

Vision:
That's what this whole process is seeking to define. Let me be VERY clear in saying we are not allowed to define the vision for CAP. What we're doing is putting some heads together & producing a series of articles to the CAP & AF community asking for them to think about the subject & begging that they come together as a team at the command levels that do have those responsibilities & produce a unified document that they then communicate to the troops so we can get on board & push to those objectives with all our might.

Increased role w/ AF - AND - Mission Expansion
Not to be repetitive, but my feeling is that our mission, throwing back to our WWII efforts (more than just sub-patrol) & our cold war Civil Defense focus, lays primarily in Homeland Defense in the post 9/11 world.

To that end I'd tell you about chem/bio/nuke/rad detectors between the seats of a cessna w/ external probe weighs 50lbs including laptop, all dev at Sandia National Lab (Chem/Bio sensor is designed for UAV); package is pretty cheap. We can overfly ports, trains, freeways, borders, stadiums, etc. Also comes in handy for assisting local HAZMAT, & some other cool concepts. Equip 380-odd planes (leaving the 172s off to start) is not so expensive, but that doesn't even matter cause DHS wants to pay for it... prob being the above prof dev issue - the govt doesn't trust "volunteers" off the street to protect the country. We need to change our image & make our people deserving of the job we want & the country NEEDS us doing.

I also want to pop some light weight off the shelf FLIR on some birds. Operator trng already avail from mil w/ free online modules supplemented by training up some internal instructor cadre. Again this is relatively inexpensive & Cesna installs at the factory right now for border patrol & other such customers. Start running some night CN flights on the border. You gotta know that stuff is handy for SaR, I don't know how we fly SaR w/o it. Even those highly technical missions like Mt Hood a few weeks back where we don't have mountain climbing rescue teams, we could still fly around w/ a FLIR looking for targets. You know they desperately need this stuff in CO & KS flying those blizzards. We need it bad for our Firewatch missions here in Texas. Again with this the cost is not that much more than something like SDIS & at less than 5-10% of what ARCHER costs we can run it on a lot of planes. Again - who's going to trust that investment or that complex gear in the flying boy scouts that we're more worried about hurting themselves than where we can use them to save the world.

I'm sure many of you have other excellent ideas. Point being, if we can earn the trust & respect of AF then we can do some big time stuff... which may or may not be so readily avail to us under the guard, but is a 1AF mission... anyway we need to be indespensible to the AF.

If you've been watching lately, AF added Cyberspace to their mission statement, and stood up 8AF to combat cyber terrorism. There's a story out of - what Joint Defense or something wasn't it? - talking about the possibility of starting a whole new civilian Aux based on CAP to partner w/ industry & help fill that mission... sounds like something we can incorporate if you ask me.

There's also augmentation, like CGAux does, but on steroids.... Got chaplains in a big role already.... Can slide some other professional degreed folks in behind. Legal/CPA aid to families & military personnel for instance, maybe something more direct that saves on outside contractors, who knows how far you can take it, Medical is being talked about at high levels right now.... CGAux takes a role w/ assisting reruiters, which CAP members have done informally before & there used to be some kind of MOU that auth them to ask for help. I think CGAux, at least they used to, has a big before you go to CG Acad come work with the Aux during your senior year of HS, at least that's how I understand it; CAP has a superb badazz exceptional relationship w/ AF Acad. Can at least work much closer w/ liaison officers (which I hope you cadet programs officers are doing anyway, but we can help them too).... You can look at SDFs & what they do to stand in for guard members under certain circumstances (like CGAux they work to certify in a limited number of career fields & then go work under supervision)...There seem to be a lot of places we can help if we are able to step up (see again the prof dev angle).

Disaster Response:
This is a big one people like to look at after Katrina, but that doesn't happen too often & those of us in high risk disaster zones tend to be better prepared for those contengncies than say Montana. Let me address this issues though.

Problem happen you got local authorities. When it gets too big for them then they'll tap mutual-aid (which must be 100% NIMS compliant); when none of their neighbors can help, then the state comes in... now if you're Iowa & your state is short of resources then you might see a space for CAP, if you're Texas & the state has 3 times as many light aircraft as the Wing does, plus theirs have FLIR & trained full-time professional crews (LE, parks/wildlife/etc), well there's less space in there... that's also a real short span before FEMA declares it a federal disaster area (economic or other impact beyond the stateline). I have no problem flying for state/local, we do that now on Federal money via AFNSEP mission numbers.

Once a disaster goes federal, Active Duty Army (1st Army & 5th Army, who in their day job supervise the ANG & ARNG training for their federal combat missions) takes charge of Military Assistance to Civil Authorities. That means their Brigade Commanders step in to take charge of directing guard/reserve/active units of all services to assist in SaR/DR activities. The Governor at this point tends to take care of restoring order (law enforcemnt). On the AF side AFNSEP coordinates with them to deliver AF resources. 1AF is the designated Air Component Commander for all military & civilian aircraft in the disaster airspace & the operational commander of any AF resources AFNSEP makes avail to help civil authorities.

I'm of the opinion you want to stand real close to 1AF in that equation, but there are pro/cons on both sides of the equation. The trump factor I think is just one little side focus of our big picture ES mission, and because it's an Army assigned function it stays secondary to things like HLD. That's up for discussion though. Ultimately you need to understand though that CAP as a whole (and certainly not us) doesn't get to decide this stuff. We can put some ideas out & generate discussion, but ultimately AF & Congress are going to do what they think from their perspective is best for them.

AF Decorations (side issue)
We had another thread going on this before. Point being a LOT of AF decorations are awardable to civilians, particularly when serving w/ or at the direction of AF. Many of these are currently awarded to contractors for sustained or singularly excpetional service - big story a couple months back about a contractor got an ariel achievement medal for maint test flying over a period of years. Chris Arnold on here was telling a story about a CAP pilot that had an engine failure on AFAM in Katrina & landed on the hwy between to semis w/ no damage to the plane - try that w/ an F16 & see what they give you for your time. There's also some that say awardable to military personnel that are very appropriate to CAP personnel & we'd like them to mod the rules or rather just mod the interpretation that that applies to CAP personnel on AFAM. The Volunteer Service Medal & Humanitarian Service Medal for instance.

The point of this aspect goes two ways. One it gives AF an opportunity to recognize contributions by CAP members to the AF & its missions. Which in turn breeds respect, trust, & appreiciation by rank-in-file AF personnel (which if you'll ref above, leads to more important mission possibilities). The second aspect is for our members also serving with the military it gives them some extra juice & recognition that may help their careers along.

Governance:
We ALL accept that the system we have is broke. It was broke before the 2000 changes come in, and the NB/NEC aspects were not updated to work w/ the 2000 changes. We need an overhaul.

The concensus is to create ONE governance level with a vertical command structure underneath it. That means BoG is in charge. They have hire/fire auth over paid NHQ staff now; they should be the ones to pick Nat CC (maybe from a list of recommended condidates). How far past you that you take it is up for debate. I think we need to re-eval our need for regions at all. What we talked about on the call was to retain the NB as a Conf of Wg CCs to act as an advisory board to NatCC & BoG, and for them to internally elect their own executive cmte, as well as additional study/advisory panels to address issues. Understand now that in reality since 2000 they have not been a governing body & they don't need to go on acting like one. Far as the rest of the Col slots, those need to be at least confirmed (advice & consent like the senate confirming presidential nominees) by BoG.

Remember now I also got the top guy in that member elected CAC-like 1Sgt system as CCM & sitting on BoG.

Partner
This is necessarily at the end cause it has to flow from the rest.

You got National Guard, and there's nothing wrong with them. If you're talking just about disaster response then there's minor advantages to being under the guard in that space before federal aid can be put in under existing rules. However, there's some states that don't need us, and some that do. They also have little interest in our other missions, so those get deprioritized cause who's paying the bills & standing right over our shoulder sets the priorities. There's good & bad poitns to it. I won't slight the perspective, but I think we can accomplish all of that under one national MOU w/ NGB & 1AF that states will have the option to sign on to if they want to utilize CAP in that way in exchange for the level of involvement & support Iowa is getting.

If you do it under an MOU then that frees you to keep our operational control & broader range of mission options udner 1AF. You also get to keep our day-to-day mgmt (ADCON) under AETC who is in the best position to help us with our prof dev issues & to look after our AE & CP missions.

By the way, Cadet Programs is NOT a sideshow. If we didn't haev CP & AE & ES all in a pile together we'd ahve been shut down 60 times in the last 65 years. It takes the whole package working in concert to keep us a viable investment for the government, we just aren't that big a deal otherwise. I think that's important to emphasize to our members that you can't lean on one mission & think that's good enough. You have to depend on our fellow specialist working each differnt angle or we're dead. You don't fly ES missions unless the AF sees that plane as useful to get CAP & AFROTC cadets flown also, otherwise it's not worth it to them.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2007, 01:43:00 AM by DNall » Report to moderator   Logged
JohnKachenmeister
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,352

« Reply #8 on: January 06, 2007, 02:33:27 AM »

Dennis:

I like your idea of degrees for officers and selection by a board.

I think, however, that OTS (AOTS) must be a resident course. 

The reasons are:

1.  The intensity of the training.  Having a TAC officer in your face is a lot different than watching R. Lee Ermey in your living room.

2.  Bonding and networking.  The candidates get to know one another, and that starts them having a wing-wide personal support network.  I still get e-mails from guys I was in OCS with, and we graduated in 1978.

3.  Drill.  These folks may never have marched in their lives.  Putting them together and teaching them drill is the most effective way to learn it.  Its a psychomotor skill done in a collective environment, and as such it is not amenable to passive learning techniques.

Also, unless you plan an "Up or out" system, it isn't fair to limit promotions to certain numbers of certain grades.
Report to moderator   Logged
Another former CAP officer
ncc1912
Member

Posts: 51

« Reply #9 on: January 06, 2007, 02:40:49 AM »

It is very interesting that I found this post.  I was just thinking about this while I was cooking dinner this evening:

Governance:
I am fond of the idea of eliminating autocracy in CAP.  Yes the system is broke.  A fundamental changes is needed.

Option 1)  [autocracy]  No change:  BOG is impotent.  NEC and NB remain puppets.
Option 2)  [oligarchy] Place the BOG in charge by selecting the NatCC and use the NB in an advisory role.
Option 3)  [militaristic]  Put the AF and/or NGB in direct control by selecting the NatCC.  No BOG.
Option 4)  [parliamentary/republic] 
  • NatCC (and NatCV together) generally elected by all members of voting age. 
  • NatCC selects Nat Volunteer Staff with confirmation by BOG. 
  • W/CC generally elected by wing members of voting age. 
  • W/CCs make up NB. 
  • Senior W/CC chairs NB. 
  • NatCC selects R/CC from sitting W/CC; appointed to the NEC (after confirmation by BOG). 
  • Nat Volunteer Staff sits on NEC. 
  • NatCV chairs NEC. 
  • Decisions made by one 'house' must be confirmed by the other and presented to NatCC for approval. 
  • BOG serves as 'judicial' branch. 
  • NatCC retains right to remove R/CCs but must secure approval from BOG.
  • R/CCs retain right to remove W/CCs but must secure proper investigation (by an outside investigating party). 
  • No interim W/CCs.
  • W/CV acts as commander until new W/CC can be elected.

I am sure there are many more options, but the latter two are more appealing to me.   Option 4, I have not heard mentioned before.

Comments?
Report to moderator   Logged
//SIGNED//
JUSTIN B. BAIER, Major, CAP
"Dislocated Member"
Civil Air Patrol - United States Air Force Auxiliary
Active-duty USAF
Seoul, Republic of Korea
ricwalters
Newbie

Posts: 4

« Reply #10 on: January 06, 2007, 03:28:23 AM »

From the perspective of a fairly new member who has ascended to the lofty position of Squadron Commander:

There are indeed plenty of changes needed to make CAP more functional and useful.  I spent 24 years in the military (Army, Army NG, ANG and AFRES), and expected to find similitarities in CAP and the military that I haven't found, as well as some (mostly unpleasant) that I have.

I like ncc1912's Option 3, putting us back under direct AF control, but, as I understand it, weren't we there before? And didn't we wind up a 501c3 corporation because the AF didn't want us "under their wing", taking up one of their MG slots? If they took us back today, what would prevent this from  happening again in 10 years? 

Frankly, since we Texans don't get any state funding (because someone is ticked off, from what I've heard), I don't want to be tied to the ANG as a red-headed stepchild. Despite the great relationship we have with them here in Houston, I cannot imagine that to be the case everywhere else. Working side by side with them - absolutely. We can do so much to assist them, not only with our "professionals", but with our planes and pilots.

If I were able to make things happen "my way", I'd reinstate the AF's control over CAP, kill off the corporation, and change the chain of command so that the Nat'l Commander reported directly to the 1AF Commander (a 1 star to a 3 or 4 star).  We'll never get very far if we don't return to professional leadership - which would mean that the Nat'l Commander becomes a 3 year, paid position, subject to military justice as well as military performance standards. (not a criticism of any leaders, past or present - just an observation) Also, the Nat'l CC would be selected by a board of CAP senior officers and approved by the 1AF CC. The selection board would only meet to select the Nat'l CC, and once that was completed, disband. None of its members would be eligible to serve on another selection board. Board members would be selected through a process where they applied to the 1AF CC, and were notified of their selection no more than a month prior to the Board meeting.  I believe that would take the politicking, arm twisting, "good ole boying" out of the process.

Full time staff would be kept essentially the same, but there'd be enough of them to perform the mission without overworking them.

Regions and Wings would remain the same. Geographic commands work best. I spent time in the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. When I started, we had geographic commands. After the reorganization in the early 90's, we were aligned with the individual AF Major Commands, and our command and control went the way of the biplane. OSI Region Commanders now have responsibility for units that may be located from San Antonio to Yemen, etc. It only makes sense to keep the command structure "local".


Parts of ncc1912's option 4 make a lot of sense, tool, especially the suggestion that the BOG sit as a judicial branch, and the requirement for investigations by outside agencies - not our IG, but someone else (maybe our own OSI type of agency that is shielded from command influence).

There is also much to agree with in D'Nall's suggestions regarding A/OTS, etc. Adding that element would improve our professionalism, as well as show the AF that we're serious about being "officers". Right now, those AF members who do know about CAP think we're "just pretending to be officers". Having an OTS would go a long way towards changing that perception.
Report to moderator   Logged
ELTHunter
Seasoned Member

Posts: 346
Unit: SER-TN-170

« Reply #11 on: January 06, 2007, 03:35:11 AM »

Can anyone outline the CAP structure as it was initially, and then in the 50's through the 1999 change?  My history only goes back to 1998/9.  It would be nice to understand the organizational history and what was right and wrong.
Report to moderator   Logged
Maj. Tim Waddell, CAP
SER-TN-170
Deputy Commander of Cadets
Emergency Services Officer
A.Member
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,621

« Reply #12 on: January 06, 2007, 04:27:25 AM »

...I don't want to be tied to the ANG as a red-headed stepchild. Despite the great relationship we have with them here in Houston, I cannot imagine that to be the case everywhere else.
I couldn't agree more.  This is one of the huge shortfalls of the NGB proposal - so much so that it kills it in my mind.  Because of vast differences between states, CAP may thrive in some and die on the branch in others.

Quote from: DrJbdm
...it boils down it seems to who has main control over us, NGB or 1st AF.  I know we are currently under AETC, and while that may make some sense for the AE or CP programs, it makes no sense for our operational programs (ES/DR) but neither AE/CP is the main focus of CAP nor should they be. Our main focus is ES/DR or at least it should be. 
And I disagree with this statement.  AE is at the core of the organization.  It's why we were founded.  Next came the cadet programs.  And finally, ES.   One can not over-emphasize the value/impact the cadet program has on the organization and the community.  It's the key selling point of the organization.  Without it, I'm confident we wouldn't exist today.  As for AE, it continually gets thrown to the backseat - but it shouldn't be.  There is a ton of opportunity there but it's not utilized.  Long story short, we have 3 missions.  All are appropriate and deserving of equal attention...but not all are paid appropriate attention.  That should change.

Another observation, based on the few members here that wish to comment on such topics, it appears that there is overwhelming support for improved officer training, ie. OTS, even if there isn't necessarily a concensus on what specifically it entails.  That is encouraging because, in all these discussions, it's one thing that we can control within the organization, even today, and it would go a long way towards improving a number of issues.
Report to moderator   Logged
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,983

« Reply #13 on: January 06, 2007, 04:36:04 AM »

Quote
It's why we were founded

Well, really they formed CAP as a civil defense (i.e., emergency services) organization.  Only later did they get into cadet programs/AE.  I would be surprised if you find any real external AE mandate until the corporation itself was formed after the war. 
Report to moderator   Logged
A.Member
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,621

« Reply #14 on: January 06, 2007, 05:07:42 AM »

Quote
It's why we were founded

Well, really they formed CAP as a civil defense (i.e., emergency services) organization.  Only later did they get into cadet programs/AE.  I would be surprised if you find any real external AE mandate until the corporation itself was formed after the war. 
Yes and no.  It's off-topic so I don't want to debate it too much here but in every country that was overrun by the Axis powers, civil aviation was eliminated.  Paraphasing a bit from AFIADL, but even in countries not yet overrun by the Axis, civil aviation was either drastically curtailed or eliminated - this was also true for the U.S.  It was a result of these actions that civilian "aviation enthusiasts" became concerned about it's future.  They came to the realization that:

1.  The nation's air power had to be strengthened [for a possible conflict with the Axis powers]

2.  Civil aircraft flights in the United States might be eliminated for the duration [of the war]

They felt that civil aviation could play a roll and wanted to serve their country and set out to convince others likewise.  The civil defense solution was an approached that was offered.  And throughout the war, CAP conducted pilot training.

So, to your point, defense was certainly a critical factor as well.  The point I was simply trying to make was that all 3 missions still have great value.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2007, 01:23:39 PM by A.Member » Report to moderator   Logged
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci
flyguy06
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,195

« Reply #15 on: January 06, 2007, 05:12:10 AM »

What conference call on Jan 4? I didnt hear anything about a conference call
Report to moderator   Logged
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #16 on: January 06, 2007, 07:00:19 AM »

Hey Captain Walters isn't it? Think I sat across from you at the Gp Christmas thing last month. Welcome aboard.

Can anyone outline the CAP structure as it was initially, and then in the 50's through the 1999 change?  My history only goes back to 1998/9.  It would be nice to understand the organizational history and what was right and wrong.
I'll do the best I can with it, feel free everybody to correct me where I'm off on the timeline...

You got the founding thru war part right, civilian CD org... taken over by AAF for sub/border patrol, etc & cadet program founded to prep & recruit for Army pilot candidates; AE to get strong AAF funded...

War ends, hangin out attached to AAF but obselete & waiting for the cut. Congress likes the cadet program & AE in the guns to butter conversion helps civil aviation develop so we'll be more ready for the next war, so CAP corp is founded...

At this point you join as enlisted, can apply to be officer, pilots/education/etc get it & get command positions. Professional standards between CAP & AAF of the day are about the same.

Seperate AF is created... Before they worry about getting blue uniforms they go lobby Congress to make CAP the perm & forever more Aux, Congress agrees (but strangely doesn't revoke the title 36 corp status when ammending titile 10)...

CAP-USAF established w/ a Brig Gen commanding, CAP structure reports to CAP-USAF just like it was any other AF unit... CAP-RAP (Reserve Assistance Program) puts active & inactive reservists w/ CAP units as advisors for retirement/promotion points.

Structure is streamlined, CAP-USAF CC takes second hat as CAP Nat CC...

Cold War is on. CAP spins up to civil defense mission (lot like that era's version of CERT), SaR in the background. This is the era where the reserves are weekend warriors keeping up quals to fill the void in case of war & be the last line of defense... CAP is viewed much the same way (nice poster from that era on CAPBlog). Not to last though, AF is getting more educated folk & gunning up the PME cycle, soon to leave CAP in the dust. Unforms are almost exactly like AF (ex- blue slides w/ CAP)

That goes along for quite some time. Then Congress in the budget cutting years decides they don't need to pay for a general slot to command CAP - was that during or just after Vietnam? Anyway, Nat CC becomes a volunteer CAP member (Brig Gen), still reports to CAP-USAF CC (now a Col), CAP-USAF CC becomes Executive Director in command of full time NHQ staff (which is mostly AF personnel & a few support civilians in a single staff).

The corporate vs Aux era begins. Adult enlisted grades are cut we go all officer, CAP/CC makes himself a Maj Gen w/o AF consent. AF kicks & screams here there wanting to reassert control of CAP, they get pissed by an uppity CAP/CC or two, we get marron epaulets.

Cyclical slide back & forth between acting like we report to AF & dad can't tell me what to do... series of problems gets more & more out of control... varrious AF IGs try to investigate but don't have auth to bring charges, but the issues get solved & it gets dropped.

Things go well for a while, we get really good at SaR, stay real busy, org back to cold war era 80k, we get gray epaulets in recognition of how retarded maroon looks on an AF uniform our good work. Congress moves from giving us old trainers to buying Cessnas.

More scandals, lots of bad feelings on the AF side. AWC puts out a paper from a former CAP member then AF officer, says keep CAP as AF Aux, but move ADCON to DoT & OPCON to AF (just like CG to the Navy). Other Agencies get discussed - NTSB, etc, Army expresses an interest since they control disaster & like the cadet program to feed their Warrant Officer Flight Trng pgm. CAP command puts out to members to lobby the crap out of Congress, which they do. AF looks around at all these other people that want CAP & suddenly don't want to lose it so bad - never got out of the study phase anyway.

This is mid-90s now retention sucks but total floats close to 70. Investigations closing on critical mass, no good way to fix things before they get big. Around 96/7 SER has conf w/ AF funds on a cruise ship... pretty shady, but they spent money the same way they would if it was at a hotel, least that was word at the time. Popped a fat investigation though in which lots of other not so legit stuff came up. AETC IG get's slammed for investigating things AF doesn't have control over (corporate status strikes again), pissed off AF starts OSI investigation, that's a mess. AF goes to Congress & askes to take back direct command of CAP or don't hold them responsible for the mess. Congress orders a less biased GAO investigation, most of the original problems AF found are solved by then, but new stuff is found. CAP agrees to fix some not others, cries about AF bein the bully.

House Armed Services Cmte agrees & writes a bill that gives AF full auth over CAP & orders SecAF to appoint all Wg/Reg/Nat CC slots. Bill gets argued about for a while, issues what auth Congress has to order around this suposedly private corp.

Bill finally comes up in 99, kicked around on the floor, cmte version get shot down, new version gets wrote on the floor. Creates joint CAP & AF cmte (BoG) to excersice all the powers AF was asking for. Orders SecAF to fix it. Makes the Aux status temp so AF not responsible for day-to-day.

GAO doesn't like CAP (non-Gov) appointing members of this board that has control of congressionally appropriated funds, says that's illegal, all members of such boards have to be appointed by Congress or a Congressionally Confirmed govt officer, or have to be confirmed by Congress themselves. They fight about that a bit, SecAF in the end assures GAO they don't have a strong case & AF will solve the problems with strong appointments of theri own & not tolerate BS from CAP anymore.

CAP continues with the same structure as before w/ NB/NEC acting like there is no such thing as a BoG. CAP hires private Exec Director. to manage all civilian staff, CAP-USAF becomes just a monitoring agency for oversight & compliance. CAP-USAF liaison officers & NCOs at Wg (AF retired like AFJROTC, DoD employees at prior-mil pay rate) become CAP employees (state directors) paid by AF, Region stays reservists - till this year or two a lot of their personnel got cut out in a non-CAP related change by AF on the budget.

That brings us to now. Still same sorts & volume of investigations that started this mess going back 10+years cause no one has authority to stop things when they're small. Don't get me wrong, I blame Congress pulling AF back out of direct command to save money, & in doing so not coming up with some other way for AF to have authority over the other aspects of CAP & be able to fix things. Some in Congress see the situation & are fed up, want to just cut the thing & get on with it, others love the idea of CAP & want to fix the Aux status, still others want to preserve the civilian identity & just tweak a little to get on a few more years till a better idea comes along - all of the above with the very best of honorable intentions.

Lay over the top 9/11 comes in, BIG BIG homeland defense need for CAP to step up, but no one (AF included) knows what to do... takes forever to get DHS created & define everyone's role. Part of that process is creating NIMS to standardize training standards for all emergency responders in the country - CAP doesn't remotely qualify & if you look at those standards for SaR operators they're pretty scary to a lot of CAP members, lots of intense tiem consuming training, there's a wildland firefighter style PT test, it ain't no game & you can't get missions unless you qual. Also, can't get fed funding for manmade/natural disaster or homeland defense (especially DHS grants) unless you comply fully. Same time, new ELT tech is in transition w/ new system that databursts GPS w/ a code that IDs the owner so AFRCC can wake them up & tell them to turn the crap off. That cuts the 90% of our missions that were non-distress signal search, that transition is in progress to be complete by 2009.... Deal there being we need to evolve now before someone figures out we're obselete again just like when there were no more subs to chase. Need to go big to Homeland defense where the country needs us, and that requires BIG BIG changes on our part.

Okay, sorry that's a touch long & some of the details might be off a touch here or there, everyone else feel free to correct, but lets get it & get back to focus on topic.
Report to moderator   Logged
Earhart1971
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #17 on: January 06, 2007, 09:24:10 AM »

You guys are going nuts typing.

Since I have a little Insomnia, how about a few quick points.

1. All, of you make this so Complicated, nothing will ever come of this.

2. I don't understand the National Guard concept, the National Guard to me is just another State Supported Organization, that lacks for money to operate.

How we would benefit by trying to get support from (another poor man on the street) is beyond me.

3. I don't know why we are so dependent on the Air Force and what they will think, but that goes back to we have no Vision, and we want to consult with the Air Force about that.

The Air Force has a vision, but unless they have control, they would prefer just to spend money on what they can control like AFJROTC.

I like the spirit of CAP, and the seperate Corporation, we have all the tools, to get more money, but it appears we have no saleman to get the job done.

Why would an Air Force General make any recommendations on CAP, just bringing up CAP, could make them look bad.

4. You avoid the hard truths and the reality of - WE JUST CHURN MEMBERS!

People join for benevolent reasons, get in and then, they leave, and we start all over.

Solutions:

1. Make CAP a lot less complicated.

2. Narrow the Missions

3. Determine a viable way for CAP to gain good Visibility and more members.

4.And the final Thought.

5. Make CAP rewarding enough that we interview new membership rather than bring people in with the sales pitch, and then reality sets in, they leave.

Let us focus on costs:

We have 30 Million in budget from Congress each year, we save the Federal Budget Half a Billion or so by what we do in SAR, and Homeland Sec.

Can anybody here agree we are doing this at the expense of our members?

Go ahead argue with me, but I calculated from the Air Force Cost of doing SAR with their Aircraft.

I know the costs of Law Enforcement Aviation, because I am close to Law Enforcement, they operate at a minimum of $400 per hour.

Leadership:

We have none, part of the problem is we are focused on compliance, and focused on spending money on admin cost and equipment cost. It would be nice to have a budget that projects growth of our organization.

Once we elect a National Commander, do we really have a Commander? Can he make decisions?

Read the minutes of the Board meetings, everything is based on no budget impact. Nobody, makes any hard decisions.

And we accept that we have to do everything so cheap, it kills our membership off.

Which goes back to, a theory I have about loss of equipment, misappropriations and the Accounting of the late 90s.

If we in fact churn members, the ones going inactive are probably carrying away some of our assets as compensation for their services.

And by the way anybody who flys CAP Missions should be a Commercial Pilot, therefore, the pay factor would be legal, in any case the FAA or Congress would waiver that with the right lobby effort.

How about this for a recruiting poster, join us for the best part-time job in America, serve in the CAP, Fly, or work as a Ground Team member.

Pay, benefits, points toward retirement, education, while serving in the NEW Civil Air Patrol.

Points toward retirement, man, thats a great idea!

Lets become an Organization that gets paid like the National Guard.

Then we interview and select members.



Report to moderator   Logged
JohnKachenmeister
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,352

« Reply #18 on: January 06, 2007, 02:13:11 PM »

Dennis:

Your historical analysis is pretty much right on.  Except a few details:

The cadet program was created in 1942.  We needed pilots, and many were washing out of flight school because the rapid transition from civilian to soldier was too much for them.  It was believed by Arnold that a high-school military training program would better prepare pilot candidates.

AE came about as the Air Force came into its own.  They realized that they would need to spend HUGE amounts of money to develop new techologies for the new jets coming out, and having a knowledgeable Air Force presence in communities was felt to be needed to keep the taxpayers supportive.

The corporate structure was established so that CAP would not only be a permanent fixture (We were the only military auxiliary to see actual combat, and the only military auxiliary from World War II that survived beyond the early Cold War.  If you don't believe me, go down to the USAF recruiter and tell them you want to join the Ground Observer Corps.)  but also to allow us to contract with state and local governments who might need our light-plane assets. 

The Vietnam War and the anti-military social turbulence that it created is what hurt the CAP far worse than any of our recent scandals.  The "Corporate uniform" was not designed for us larger flyers, it was adopted to accomodate the long-hairs that refused to look military.  THAT is when CAP started taking its own path away from the Air Force.  Now we're lost in the woods.

Also... in the Cold War we didn't have "Blue slides."  We wore khaki uniforms then.  Shade 505 and 1505.  The 1505 had rounded tips on the collars.  Officers wore metal rank, but still wore the miniature cap piece on the flight cap in lieu of rank device.  The CAP identification was, for officers, a red, white, and blue patch that looked like a Pepsi-Cola label over the right pocket.  Cadets had a blue and white patch.  These were changed to metal badges in 1966.  Shoulder slides didn't come around until the late 70's.
 
Report to moderator   Logged
Another former CAP officer
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,983

« Reply #19 on: January 06, 2007, 03:21:01 PM »

Quote
The corporate structure was established so that CAP would not only be a permanent fixture (We were the only military auxiliary to see actual combat, and the only military auxiliary from World War II that survived beyond the early Cold War. 

Incorrect.  The CG Auxiliary was created 2 years before CAP and is still going strong. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: Paper: Structural Change, etc
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.101 seconds with 27 queries.
click here to email me