Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 26, 2019, 06:04:37 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: Losing the term "Officer" as a generic term for Senior Members
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Send this topic Print
Author Topic: Losing the term "Officer" as a generic term for Senior Members  (Read 16359 times)
NIN
Administrator

Posts: 5,156
Unit: of issue

« Reply #40 on: January 17, 2008, 08:03:26 PM »

So would "Operations Squadron" or "Mission Support Squadron."  Since that's what they do.  So the breakdown would be:

Cadet Squadron
Operations Squadron or MSS
Composite Squadron

Sounds good to me. Since the title of the squadrons should reflect what they do rather than who's in it.

How about just "Squadron"?

Years ago I suggested that my composite squadron was really a "cadet squadron swathed in the trappings of a composite squadron, with all the structure of a composite squadron that we don't really need or want" and that I wanted to reclassify my unit as a cadet squadron to relieve some of the overhead.

My former wing commander (Jimmydeanno will know this guy) said to me "We can't afford to lose any more composite squadrons in this wing.."

I had to shake my head.  "Lose any more composite squadrons?"  If you have a cadet squadron that is masquerading as a composite squadron and doing neither well, its time for a change.  SImple as that. Its not like its performing as a composite squadron.  Also,  its not like the unit couldn't be a composite squadron again, easily, by the simple submission of the CAPF27. "The stroke of a pen, sir."

But then again, that same wing commander didn't even qualify for the Red Service ribbon until 3 months after he became wing commander, so why would I expect him to have 2/10th of a clue about the differences between cadet and composite squadrons and the reasons for changing a unit from one to the other?

(this the same wing commander who tried to lecture me about what the regulations *really* meant about the award of the Unit Citation.  He was dead wrong, trying to apply his Air Force background to the situation without truly reading the regulation.  He continued to claim that even though the regulation said one thing, he'd called NHQ and they assured him that it meant something else. *sigh*)

Report to moderator   Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2019 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
JohnKachenmeister
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,352

« Reply #41 on: January 17, 2008, 10:10:01 PM »

I agree, Darin. 

We should refer to our units by their numbers, and parenthetically by their type.

the 289th CAP Squadron (Cadet Training)

The 18th CAP Squadron (Composite)

The 122nd CAP Squadron (Officer Support)
Report to moderator   Logged
Another former CAP officer
afgeo4
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,566

« Reply #42 on: January 18, 2008, 02:30:08 AM »

I agree, Darin. 

We should refer to our units by their numbers, and parenthetically by their type.

the 289th CAP Squadron (Cadet Training)

The 18th CAP Squadron (Composite)

The 122nd CAP Squadron (Officer Support)
What about 289th Cadet Training Squadron? 18th Composite Squadron? 122nd Operations Squadron?

That allows for tag lines to say things like 289th CTS or 18th CS or 122nd OS... the same way it works in the USAF. It simply makes sense.
Report to moderator   Logged
GEORGE LURYE
afgeo4
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,566

« Reply #43 on: January 18, 2008, 02:39:54 AM »

So would "Operations Squadron" or "Mission Support Squadron."  Since that's what they do.  So the breakdown would be:

Cadet Squadron
Operations Squadron or MSS
Composite Squadron

Sounds good to me. Since the title of the squadrons should reflect what they do rather than who's in it.

I like that!

BTW...when I joined our Composite Squadron I mentioned I might like to do PT with the Cadets. One of the leadership mentioned that was great as the Cadets thought all of the Senior Members were just that...Senior, as in OLD.

BTW...I am both the Emergency Services Officer and IT Officer for my squadron. So am I an "officer" or not? I am not called the ES Senior Member.

I prefer the term Officer over SM any day of the week.
We are a paramilitary organization with a grade and rank structure that is patterned after the United States Air Force. We have officer and NCO grades that reflect that too. We also members who have not earned grade yet (they've yet to prove themselves to the organization).

Now I understand that oh so many members in CAP have never been in the military and have never even researched the military before joining, so I understand how they may be confused by the whole "officer" thing since the only officers they've probably dealt with have been in Law Enforcement (where the term "officer" applies to all ranks, from patrolman to chief)

Your job duty title has no relevance on whether you are actually an officer in CAP. It simply tells people what you do. They can call you IT "Guy" if they want, it still doesn't change anything. However... if someone calls you an Officer, then you are probably not an NCO.

Report to moderator   Logged
GEORGE LURYE
JohnKachenmeister
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,352

« Reply #44 on: January 18, 2008, 03:55:15 AM »

I agree, Darin. 

We should refer to our units by their numbers, and parenthetically by their type.

the 289th CAP Squadron (Cadet Training)

The 18th CAP Squadron (Composite)

The 122nd CAP Squadron (Officer Support)
What about 289th Cadet Training Squadron? 18th Composite Squadron? 122nd Operations Squadron?

That allows for tag lines to say things like 289th CTS or 18th CS or 122nd OS... the same way it works in the USAF. It simply makes sense.

That works too, but I don't want folks confused between us and the AF/ANG.
Report to moderator   Logged
Another former CAP officer
AC
Forum Regular

Posts: 113
Unit: SWR-TX-293

« Reply #45 on: January 18, 2008, 07:32:51 AM »

How about calling a senior member, instead of SMWOG, "Airman". When I joined the Air Force, they called me that, and I was an adult. Cadets have a Cadet Airman. Just drop the cadet when you become an adult.

PS  When I got promoted, I went to Airman 3rd class, and thought it was a demotion! I should have told them I had a CAP COP, but I didn't. I was supposed to go to AECP anyway, and thought it didn't matter. That was a whole new ranking system.
PS2 I looked at my rank here, and now I'm back to "recruit"! Thinking back, I was a recruit before I was an airman!
« Last Edit: January 18, 2008, 01:22:52 PM by AC » Report to moderator   Logged

Terence Maroste      "We're Paratroopers, Lieutenant. We're
Maj, CAP                   supposed to be surrounded."
AEO
SWR-TX-293                  -Captain Richard Winters
Gunner C
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,748

« Reply #46 on: January 18, 2008, 12:06:59 PM »

How about calling a senior member, instead of SMOG, "Airman".

There's two questions here:  generic term for adult members and a new designation for SMWOG.

For the first, Airman is the best choice IMO.  We use all of the other grades in the Air Force, why not that.  We could also use Airman Basic as the AF does.

I think that Airman could also be used as a generic term for all adult CAP members.  Failing that, just call us "members" with cadets being referred to as "cadets."
Report to moderator   Logged
Al Sayre
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,514
Unit: SER-MS-001

Mississippi Wing
« Reply #47 on: January 18, 2008, 12:48:06 PM »

Some folks might take offense to being called a "member"... :D
Report to moderator   Logged
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787
sparks
Seasoned Member

Posts: 269

« Reply #48 on: January 18, 2008, 01:09:36 PM »

I wonder what other organizations call their members? The Red Cross probably call themselves employees or volunteers. They aren't military so maybe a better comparison would be a volunteer fire department. A fireman without rank would more than likely be referred to by specialty, "fireman", but I don't know. EMT's are categorized by qualification if I remember correctly. I don't like the term "senior member either". It confuses the public who thinks we're either geriatic or very experienced. Niether is true in all cases.
Report to moderator   Logged
AC
Forum Regular

Posts: 113
Unit: SWR-TX-293

« Reply #49 on: January 18, 2008, 01:32:22 PM »

I think, FWIW,  just use Airman for SMWOG. Officers and NCO'S are their rank. All senior members, as we call them now, are senior to the cadets, a unique status in CAP. Just leave it alone. No need to mess with that. Who else really cares what we call ourselves?
Report to moderator   Logged

Terence Maroste      "We're Paratroopers, Lieutenant. We're
Maj, CAP                   supposed to be surrounded."
AEO
SWR-TX-293                  -Captain Richard Winters
Gunner C
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,748

« Reply #50 on: January 18, 2008, 03:44:14 PM »

I think, FWIW,  just use Airman for SMWOG. Officers and NCO'S are their rank. All senior members, as we call them now, are senior to the cadets, a unique status in CAP. Just leave it alone. No need to mess with that. Who else really cares what we call ourselves?

What we call ourselves should (1) be descriptive and (2) make sense and (3) promote a sense of pride through accomplishment.  Senior member, while descriptive (if one is over 40), doesn't make sense to someone on the outside.  It also doesn't give a sense of belonging - Airman does all of these things.

When I was a cadet back in the 60s, I wondered why there was ranks of Airman 3rd class, Airman 2nd Class, and Airman 1st Class (changed a couple of times since) but our lowest rank was Senior Member, not Airman Basic.  Seemed to me to be pretty descriptive and was along the lines of the AF. 

Officer candidate, BTW, is an Army term, not AF.
Report to moderator   Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,662

« Reply #51 on: January 18, 2008, 03:52:54 PM »

Airmen is not exclusive to adults, therefore not appropriate.

If you restrict a particular function or activity only to "airmen" members, you'll have a bunch of new cadets standing at the door.
Report to moderator   Logged


NIN
Administrator

Posts: 5,156
Unit: of issue

« Reply #52 on: January 18, 2008, 04:03:08 PM »

Officer candidate, BTW, is an Army term, not AF.

So what does the Air Force call students in OTS?

"Hey, Bill?"

Report to moderator   Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2019 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,662

« Reply #53 on: January 18, 2008, 04:40:18 PM »

^ point taken but apples and oranges.

The lines and responsibilities in that situation are pretty clear, and you also don't have lifetime OTS students.
Report to moderator   Logged


dwb
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,347

« Reply #54 on: January 18, 2008, 05:05:30 PM »

So what does the Air Force call students in OTS?

"Hey, Bill?"

Actually, that's probably not far from the truth... ;D
Report to moderator   Logged
jason.pennington
Recruit

Posts: 39

« Reply #55 on: January 18, 2008, 05:56:10 PM »

So would "Operations Squadron" or "Mission Support Squadron."  Since that's what they do.  So the breakdown would be:

Cadet Squadron
Operations Squadron or MSS
Composite Squadron

Sounds good to me. Since the title of the squadrons should reflect what they do rather than who's in it.

This makes a lot of sense.  Afterall, you have Medical Squadrons, Logistics Squadrons, etc in the USAF.  There should be no reason why a CAP squadron can not be so named.  Even composites could be named what they are.  If a composite does Ground Team primarily (& the cadet program) they could be called (and throw in the squadron number) the 471st SAR Squadron or a unit with a plane could be called the 169th Recon Squadron ~ I don't know.  But something along those lines.
Report to moderator   Logged
afgeo4
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,566

« Reply #56 on: January 18, 2008, 06:04:39 PM »

Airman is a rank and form of address to people in the AB (E-1) through SrA (E-4) ranks in the USAF. It is also a grade and a form of address to cadets in grades C/AB through C/SrA in CAP. That's why calling SMs without grade "Airman" wouldn't be right.

I personally think that the perfect term of address for SMs is Mr. or Ms. while calling all senior members, SENIOR MEMBERS is fine to me because the English word "senior" denotes seniority to others, not a particular age. In fact, the reason why we call people "senior citizens" is because they are granted an honorary status as citizens superior to others due to their life experience. The status does come with some, however few, privileges such as discounts on things, membership in the AARP and others. Again, the word senior denotes seniority, not age.
Report to moderator   Logged
GEORGE LURYE
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,662

« Reply #57 on: January 18, 2008, 06:06:27 PM »

The CAP model does not call for "typing" a unit.

Although many units specialize, they aren't really supposed to.

Every unit in CAP should be a composite and they should be pushed to fire on all cylinders.
(Note: I realize that just saying it doesn't make it happen...)

A unit CC's ability to treat CAP like a cafeteria plan is a weakness of the program.
Report to moderator   Logged


afgeo4
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,566

« Reply #58 on: January 18, 2008, 06:11:07 PM »

I agree, Darin. 

We should refer to our units by their numbers, and parenthetically by their type.

the 289th CAP Squadron (Cadet Training)

The 18th CAP Squadron (Composite)

The 122nd CAP Squadron (Officer Support)
What about 289th Cadet Training Squadron? 18th Composite Squadron? 122nd Operations Squadron?

That allows for tag lines to say things like 289th CTS or 18th CS or 122nd OS... the same way it works in the USAF. It simply makes sense.

That works too, but I don't want folks confused between us and the AF/ANG.
How would that happen? A number and some letters do not denote a branch of service nor even the fact that the unit isn't a boy scout troop or some club chapter. They're simply internal designators.

the 108th AOS of the NJ National Guard is just that. No one would confuse it with the 108th AOS of the Civil Air Patrol and if they do, shame on them for not paying any attention to what they're looking up, researching or reading.
Report to moderator   Logged
GEORGE LURYE
afgeo4
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,566

« Reply #59 on: January 18, 2008, 06:17:03 PM »

The CAP model does not call for "typing" a unit.

Although many units specialize, they aren't really supposed to.

Every unit in CAP should be a composite and they should be pushed to fire on all cylinders.
(Note: I realize that just saying it doesn't make it happen...)

A unit CC's ability to treat CAP like a cafeteria plan is a weakness of the program.

1. Where does it say that CAP units can't or aren't supposed to specialize?

Specializing your unit according to the strengths and weaknesses of your members makes your unit extremely efficient at carrying out the CAP missions.

2. Where does it say that every unit should be a Composite unit and why?

Many members of Civil Air Patrol join the organization to become more proficient aviators and to carry out the emergency service and aerospace education missions. Those members are often not interested in being co-located with cadets and in fact, those units tend to produce more active pilots and aircrews. The system having Senior squadrons works quite well for them.

Likewise, many cadet squadrons are located in area schools where they perform uniquely well as cadet squadrons. Convincing the school to let in senior members for meetings when those members have nothing to do with school age children would be difficult (although probably not impossible) while convincing senior members to come to a school to train would be quite difficult as well (also not impossible). Finding a new location for a squadron just so it can be a composite one is simply not feasible due to lack of available free or low cost real estate that meets our requirements.
Report to moderator   Logged
GEORGE LURYE
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: Losing the term "Officer" as a generic term for Senior Members
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.134 seconds with 26 queries.