New CAP Model

[RogueLeader]

I was looking through the new CLC slides, and in 2.4, slide 8, it says that WING is the Operational Unit, not squadrons as previously noted.  Also, many pics have people in TPU CSD rather than AF or W/G.  ick.

[Eclipse]

You have to define what "operational unit" means before you can agree or disagree with that statement.

The fact is that many resources and operations are allocated, coordinated, or commanded at the wing level these days, but I would argue that this is in response to the shrinking of the program, and the practical realities of remaining functional.

The command model still holds the unit as the operational entity from an administrative view, and the unit CC's >should< be the echelon responsible for training and execution of CAP's mission(s) within their respective areas of operations, not a change to the model.

One only need to look at the SUI guides to see what the USAF still expects of our units.

As to the CLC, its still in draft, so we can always make suggestions.  I'd rather see members in the CSU than flightbags or civilian dress.

[LTC_Gadget]

I've always believed, and said, that the *unit* is where the 'rubber meets the road," and we all know it's where the real program gets executed.  Everything else is a management stop, or a paperwork repository, or at the top, a political ring.  I can't imagine what the thinking might have been behind changing the wording on that one.  They should consider the implications of trying to do anything with just wing staff.. I'll leave it to the imagination of the reader to ponder that.  Hint for the imagination impaired: It won't be pretty... 

When I was on OK Wg staff years ago, the then wing commander told us that basically, wing hq should be a support organization most of the time, facilitating the squadrons getting what they need to execute a proper program, keep people trained, active and enthusiastic, and when necessary, reminding them what *must* be done, in terms of paperwork, reports, taskings, etc., to keep all of us out of trouble with NHQ.

Obviously, that interpretation has changed.  Now, we seeming try to build momentum between stand-downs, and threats of freezes of various kinds.  The revisionists are seemingly winning.  Thirty-five years of corporate memory is a bear... 

V/R,

[jimmydeanno]

My interpretation of that statement:

The squadron is where everything happens-that is what is considered 'operational' to most. 

However, the Wing is the lowest unit in which a corporate officer resides.  The wing CC is ultimately responsible in ensuring that CAP's missions are executed in their wing. 

Just my take.

[Eclipse]

Yes, it should be an inverted pyramid with the needs of the rank-and-file membership as the central focus of the entire organization.

All you have to do is some mental gymnastics on how long the organization would last if you removed "X" echelon of management.

The only one we cannot exist without is the rank and file.  The responsibilities of any other level could be absorbed up or down with relative ease.

[NIN]

http://level2.cap.gov/documents/R020_001.pdf

20-1 used to say something like "The squadron is the basic operational unit of Civil Air Patrol."

At least since 2000, it has not said that.

[DNall]

You have to define what "operational unit" means before you can agree or disagree with that statement.

The fact is that many resources and operations are allocated, coordinated, or commanded at the wing level these days, but I would argue that this is in response to the shrinking of the program, and the practical realities of remaining functional.

That covers part of my point. The program is smaller, I think moreso than can be reflected in membership tracking. I know our ES operational capability in this area has gone down by 4-500% since I was originally in this group 10-14 years ago. While things vary geographically, I know that's a major trend nationally. There's a bunch of reasons for that we could discuss seperately, but that's not the point.

Also though, we now respond to incidents in a different way & scale. We used to get an ELT mission, one Sq would deal with that internally. REDCAP meant basically a Gp level response. Major disasters/etc would be Gp level or cobbled together & limited in scope. Now, everything we do is a Wg or even region level response.

On the cadet programs side, of course we conduct a local program, but that's minimal at best, as it is in most units just based on the time avail. However, there is an extensive structure of wing level cadet professional devleopment, activities, training, etc. Some gets run at the Gp level as well. The local unit is the minority in that matrix.

In other words, it's debatable if the rubber actually does meet the road at the Sq level, or if that's just a holding pattern. And this is the national perpective of that issue.

The command model still holds the unit as the operational entity from an administrative view, and the unit CC's >should< be the echelon responsible for training and execution of CAP's mission(s) within their respective areas of operations, not a change to the model.

That's true of every echelon level though.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Actually, our squadrons are NOT operational units.  We deploy individuals, not squadrons.  Our squadrons are really "Training Centers" to be totally accurate.

Whenever there is a mission, the Wing appoints a task force commander (called an incident commander) from a list of qualified persons.  The IC forms a task force from lists of persons qualified in ES duties, regardless of unit of assignment.  The Squadron commander is not involved, except to provide training opportunities to make sure that adequate numbers of trained persons are available to an IC.

[Eclipse]

^Once again, you need to define "operational", ES is only 1/3 of the "operations" of CAP.

The CLC curriculum encompasses the totality of CAP activities.

[lordmonar]

I have to say that no squadron has ever been an independent command ES or administratively.

We rely on wing for PD, Encampments, ES qualifications, Communications the list goes on.

Sure if the operation is very small...a single resource call out...a squadron can handle it...but the IC is usually some wing guy on the phone and not the squadron commander.

For a squadron to be truly the operational level of command then each squadron would have to have the members to perform its assigned mission.....but guess what....no squadrons are ever really tasked for specific missions.

You may have a plane...but there is no source document tasking the squadron to provide x number of crews and the the ability to operate for this period of time within XX hours of notification.

As it is.  Why bother grousing about it?  Does it really change how we operate by changing the "model"?  I think it is just the book way of doing thing catching up with what we really do.

[RiverAux]

Way, way, way back in the old days of WWII a CAP squadron probably actually did represent a squadron of 10+ aircraft and was probably large enough and active enough to do almost everything in all programs. 

[DNall]

^Once again, you need to define "operational", ES is only 1/3 of the "operations" of CAP.

The CLC curriculum encompasses the totality of CAP activities.

I mentioned cadet program above. It's hard for me to speak for other wings, cause I know some are more active than others, but a good part of ours is conducted above the Sq level - Gp/Wg cadet PD, adult CP officer training (incl but not limited to TLC), most activities, and of course encampments. What the Sq conducts is the minimum requirements for promotion - testing, PFT, ML - and a very little bit of AE in some places from time to time. It'd be debatable (in this Wg) if the CP operational level is Gp or Wg, but it isn't really Sq.

AE is conducted almost exclusively above Sq. Sure there's a little bit of internal to cadets stuff. Adult training is self-serve (NHQ). Some Wgs do a little in public. Almost everything else is done at the NHQ level.

I realize they're seperate from ES, but it's still pretty easy to make a case that Sq isn't the operational level, and that John's take on ES is pretty applicable for those areas as well. It's just in how you look at/define things.

I don't know that this is a concerted effort to REdefine things, but that may be appropriate, I would hope as part of a larger coordinated effort that didn't involve too much power grabbing/hording.

[jimmydeanno]

We rely on wing for PD, Encampments, ES qualifications, Communications the list goes on.

I don't rely on my wing for anything, but that's another discussion that I'm not going to start: "Ineffective Wing Administration and failure of wing staff members to do anything for their squadrons."

[JohnKachenmeister]

My point is, the mission given to Squadron commanders is the mission of training.  That's all, and that's not operational.

For a cadet to be successful at an encampment, or selection board, or anything else, he must receive training at the squadron level.  For ES to work, the members must receive training at the squadron level.  AE is, in and of itself, a training mission.  Internal AE is a function of squadron command.  Very few squadrons conduct their own, independent external AE programs, but rather provide trained people to higher HQ for the external mission.

If the Squadron was an operational unit, we would not task individuals with missions.  A mission would be tasked to a Squadron, and the Squadron would carry it out using its organic assets.  If they needed help, another Squadron would be tasked to assist.  That simply won't work for us, for a number of reasons, the chief among them the fact that at any given time, we have no clue how many members of Squadron "X" are available for missions.

Think Navy Reserve in this.  Navy Reserve units train for various shipboard jobs at a Training Center, but upon mobilization, the members are called up as individuals to fill in positions for which they are qualified on various ships.  The Navy Reserve commander is responsible for making sure a minimum level of skill training is conducted, but he does not command the sailors in mobilization.  He is a "Schoolmaster" who supplies trained people to the fleet.

Our squadrons do not function as operational squadrons.  They function as training centers.  They succeed in their mission to the extent that they can provide trained ES personnel to CAP, and trained, well-qualified young adults to the Nation.

[ZigZag911]

Squadrons indeed should be training units, and to help them do that there ought to be more focus on the task at hand, and less concern about having every local unit mirror an operational AF squadron.....if that's even what they are doing Does every USAF squadron have all the various staff functions, or are some administrative support roles performed by higher echelons??

The question in my mind is whether every squadron needs its own finance, admin, personnel, communications, logistics....or could some of these roles be provided more efficiently at the next echelon?

The net result would be to free over-extended squadron staff officers to do the jobs that actually need to be done in a unit -- command, safety, PD, CP, and so forth.

[RiverAux]

Well, we all saw how much many of the people here appreciated it when the Wings assumed greater responsibility for handling financial matters...

However, there should be a slimmed-down version of a squadron organizational chart for small squadrons.  Given that the average squadron is about 30 members and we have 20+ positions, it just isn't realistic to think that they're all going to be filled. 

[flyguy06]

My point is, the mission given to Squadron commanders is the mission of training.  That's all, and that's not operational.

For a cadet to be successful at an encampment, or selection board, or anything else, he must receive training at the squadron level.  For ES to work, the members must receive training at the squadron level.  AE is, in and of itself, a training mission.  Internal AE is a function of squadron command.  Very few squadrons conduct their own, independent external AE programs, but rather provide trained people to higher HQ for the external mission.

If the Squadron was an operational unit, we would not task individuals with missions.  A mission would be tasked to a Squadron, and the Squadron would carry it out using its organic assets.  If they needed help, another Squadron would be tasked to assist.  That simply won't work for us, for a number of reasons, the chief among them the fact that at any given time, we have no clue how many members of Squadron "X" are available for missions.

Think Navy Reserve in this.  Navy Reserve units train for various shipboard jobs at a Training Center, but upon mobilization, the members are called up as individuals to fill in positions for which they are qualified on various ships.  The Navy Reserve commander is responsible for making sure a minimum level of skill training is conducted, but he does not command the sailors in mobilization.  He is a "Schoolmaster" who supplies trained people to the fleet.

Our squadrons do not function as operational squadrons.  They function as training centers.  They succeed in their mission to the extent that they can provide trained ES personnel to CAP, and trained, well-qualified young adults to the Nation.

I dont know about that. In GAWG if a GT is needed, they will call GTL's in a certain Squadron and thet GTL will bring a GT from his Squadron as a unit to the mission.

[lordmonar]

I dont know about that. In GAWG if a GT is needed, they will call GTL's in a certain Squadron and thet GTL will bring a GT from his Squadron as a unit to the mission.

And that is a single resource deployment.....not operational independence.

If your squadron were operationally independant....your squadron CC would be the IC, you would have your own planning, operations, logistics, finance, legal, chaplain, pao, ground branch director, communications and all the single resource assets to accomplish the mission.

I was in a 100 member strong senior squadron and we did not have all that....we rely on on the squadrons in the area to come together to accomplish the mission.

[Eclipse]

If your squadron were operationally independant....your squadron CC would be the IC, you would have your own planning, operations, logistics, finance, legal, chaplain, pao, ground branch director, communications and all the single resource assets to accomplish the mission.

Ok, so what about squadrons that do?  Just kidding...

I understand the arguments you guys are making, but you are confusing ES Operations with organizational operations.

ES is only 1/3 of the total mission.  Would you guys argue that CP or AE happens anywhere but the squadrons?

[RiverAux]

Theoretically, a squadron can perform all aspects of all of CAP's missions except for large-scale airborne SAR operations, which require more planes than are typically assigned to squadrons, though if requirements on use of private planes were loosened, it might be possible for a squadron to do a major search on its own.  However, this is just theory and unlikely to happen. 

With that one exception, squadrons could do just about everything else though in practical life they do depend on higher units for quite a lot of support.  However, this isn't any different than what you would find in the AF either.  AF squadrons don't conduct professional education courses that would be the equivalent of our SLS or CLC (that I've ever heard of). 

But, does it really matter what CAP formally considers an "operational" unit?