New / Re-activating units

[coudano]

so 20-3 says the minimum is 15 members 3 of which have to be senior members
seems to me like there used to be different minimums for cadet or composite squadrons
were those removed, or am i just not finding them here?  (somewhere else?)

[Al Sayre]

Charter as a Flight:  Flights must have a minimum of eight members, three of whom must be senior members.

[Eclipse]

That's the way it's been as long as I can remember.  20-3 is dated 2002, and even in that rev the changes did not involve minimum membership.

[coudano]

Well I 'm actually recommending that they *NOT* charter as a flight,
nor even with the minimums for squadron,

My suggestion was to set yourself up for success, to charter well in excess of the minimums, I recommended at least 6 good solid senior members.  Cadets are (relatively) easy to go get.  Senior members, not so much.


**history on the area, there used to be two active squadrons in that part of the state, both dwindled down to 1 or 2 s/m running things and burned out when that last person finally stopped doing cap for various reasons (de-chartered).  So CAP has a history of being successful there, but as always, it takes people to make it go.

[coudano]

Another pet peeve of mine is "flights" being assigned directly subordinate to group or wing.
A flight is supposed to be a subordinate unit of a squadron, you know...

Particularly for a new unit startup, I think i'd advise having all the members go ahead and join CAP, and have them be members of an actual existing squadron.  In practice (ideally) they will have a neighbor squadron helping get them up and going anyway, and training them about how to do CAP, and having a squadron commander model that relationship properly to them.  Then when they grow in capability and maturity and size enough to be a squadron, they can pop out of the squadron they are in, into their newly formed unit.

Leaving them subordinate to groups and wings seems to me to be setting them up for less than optimal start.



I can (sort of) see it for a squadron in decline, the organizational structure (particularly the electronic business rules ) probably doesn't allow to set a flight as a subordinate unit to the squadron.  So if you don't want to de-charter the unit number, incase it resurges, then downgrade it to a "flight" and now it's stuck still being under group...  Of course the "right way" to fix that  might be to fix the business rules to let the extra echelon be there.



Another practice that I thought was interesting was that recently, I saw several units de-activated.  The remaining members at the time of deactivation were all transferred into the group headquarters.  It seems to me more reasonable that they would be placed into appropriate squadrons, or wing holding... 

[Eclipse]

Another practice that I thought was interesting was that recently, I saw several units de-activated.  The remaining members at the time of deactivation were all transferred into the group headquarters.  It seems to me more reasonable that they would be placed into appropriate squadrons, or wing holding... 

I agree - that might have been expedient, but not really proper.   Group's aren't operational anymore than the wing is, so unless those members intend
to serve a Group staff job, not much point in putting them in there, and cadets have no business being assigned to a group or the wing (or region for that matter).

[Ed Bos]

Another pet peeve of mine is "flights" being assigned directly subordinate to group or wing.
A flight is supposed to be a subordinate unit of a squadron, you know...
....
Leaving them subordinate to groups and wings seems to me to be setting them up for less than optimal start.

What works in your backyard might not be a good fit for all circumstances.

There is more to these decisions that fitting someone's ideal org-chart.