gocivilairpatrol.com

[ltcmark]

I was just looking at the new and improved Civil Air Patrol website. 

I noticed something that was a little disturbing to me.  There is no mention of the US Air Force at all on the front page. 

In fact, I could not even find a link to the mother organization on the website anywhere.   After some digging I finally found on a couple of pages were they did mention that CAP is an official auxiliary of the USAF.  It is definitely not something that is highlighted.

To be even more confused, I just read in the National Board minutes that Gen Courter is pushing for the Auxiliary to be included in Air Force concept of "Active, Reserve, Guard and Auxiliary".  It seems to me that if you going to promote "jointness" then it should be a 2 way street.  My impression of the new and improved website is that we are trying to distance ourselves from our heritage.

[SAR-EMT1]

I was just on the AU website and I didn't see CAP or a link to our website mentioned anywhere.

Are we no longer a subordinate command or has the Air Force opinion of us sunk ot a new low?

Or is it just that we are so far in the back of their minds that they forgot to mention us when they revamped their website recently?

[jimmydeanno]

I just went to the Whitehouse's website and didn't see a CAP link anywhere.

But seriously, if you go to the "Other AU links" on the left side, there is a link for CAP-USAF, which has a link to us.

[MIKE]

Merged.

[RiverAux]

To be even more confused, I just read in the National Board minutes that Gen Courter is pushing for the Auxiliary to be included in Air Force concept of "Active, Reserve, Guard and Auxiliary". 

Actually that was not her.  It was a member of the Sec. of the AF's staff. 

[argentip]

To be even more confused, I just read in the National Board minutes that Gen Courter is pushing for the Auxiliary to be included in Air Force concept of "Active, Reserve, Guard and Auxiliary". 

Actually that was not her.  It was a member of the Sec. of the AF's staff. 

It was Mr. Tom Jones, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Reserve Affairs.  He said this during his briefing during the Winter National Board Meeting.

[JayT]

I was just on the AU website and I didn't see CAP or a link to our website mentioned anywhere.

Are we no longer a subordinate command or has the Air Force opinion of us sunk ot a new low?

Or is it just that we are so far in the back of their minds that they forgot to mention us when they revamped their website recently?

Why do you feel that mentions of CAP on a website is an indications of the entire USAF's opinion of us.

[Always Ready]

^Wait the entire AF has an opinion of us? My dad (Retired AF) never heard about CAP until I joined it as a Cadet. No one in his office knew about it either until he mentioned it and a young Lt transfered into the unit. This is fairly common IMHO. I've been asked (while I was a Cadet) if I was some sort of Warrant Officer or in the VFW. That happened on a weekly basis. I would enter the base gate and the SF was like "Huh are you trying to impersonate an officer or are you ROTC or what?"  I think before anyone gets into the "Well this is the AF's opinion of us or this isn't the AF's opinion of us" argument, they need to consider that most members of th AF don't have a clue that the AF Auxiliary exists, no less has an educated opinion of us.

We as an organization need to focus on educating AF members about us just as much as we need to educate the public about us.

Edit: I believe adding a link to our website from the various AF websites would be beneficial. There are plenty of curious Airman who while surfing AF websites who would click on the link just out of curiosity. They click, they explore, they become educated about us.

[ltcmark]

It was Mr. Tom Jones, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Reserve Affairs.  He said this during his briefing during the Winter National Board Meeting.

Sorry, my bad on the reference.  That is even more amazing that someone connected with the Air Force is actually supporting the total force concept.

It seems that CAP has had more of an identity crisis since we went to the Auxiliary ON / Auxiliary OFF mode of operation.

I just think it is more prudent to show support for the one who supports you.  Not to mention that it is a relationship that I think 95% of the CAP members is proud of.

[SAR-EMT1]

I was just on the AU website and I didn't see CAP or a link to our website mentioned anywhere.

Are we no longer a subordinate command or has the Air Force opinion of us sunk ot a new low?

Or is it just that we are so far in the back of their minds that they forgot to mention us when they revamped their website recently?

Why do you feel that mentions of CAP on a website is an indications of the entire USAF's opinion of us.

Because this was the Maxwell AFB website and

1- We are a subordinate command of Air University which is at Maxwell and (more importantly)

2- CAP - NHQ IS LOCATED AT MAXWELL !!!

So in my "humble" opinion, there should at least be a link to us.

[ßτε]

Civil Air Patrol is not a subordinate command of AU. CAP-USAF is.

There is a link to CAP-USAF under "Other AU Links" on the left side of the AU page. The CAP-USAF page has a link to www.cap.gov (which now redirects to www.gocivilairpatrol.com) on their links page.

[A.Member]

What I find more "disturbing" about www.gocivilairpatrol.com is the fact that there is no straightforward description of who we are of what we do as an organization.  What is our purpose and why should anyone care? 

Users are left to hunt and peck in various places throughout the site, as well as using their imagination, in attempt to put pieces of the puzzle together.  That is not good site design or content management.  The closest thing they have is a link to the letter produced by Gen. Courter on our 65th Anniversary and that is not quite adequate for describing our organization to an outsider/potential new member.

[notaNCO forever]

What I find more "disturbing" about www.gocivilairpatrol.com is the fact that there is no straightforward description of who we are of what we do as an organization.  What is our purpose and why should anyone care? 

Users are left to hunt and peck in various places throughout the site, as well as using their imagination, in attempt to put pieces of the puzzle together.  That is not good site design or content management.  The closest thing they have is a link to the letter produced by Gen. Courter on our 65th Anniversary and that is not quite adequate for describing our organization to an outsider/potential new member.

I think they tried for shock and aw over giving actual information. A few flashy unrealistic videos and you can get a kid hooked easily; of course they quite six months latter when they don't get to do the cool stuff in the videos.

[jimmydeanno]

...of course they quit six months latter when they don't get to do the cool stuff in the videos.

Why don't they?  Orientation flights, NCC, ES training?  Sounds like things that any CAP squadron would be doing normally.

[M.S.]

...of course they quit six months latter when they don't get to do the cool stuff in the videos.

Why don't they?  Orientation flights, NCC, ES training?  Sounds like things that any CAP squadron would be doing normally.

Many squadrons don't participate in National Cadet Competition --- it's not a required part of the CAP cadet programs.

ES training is only worthwhile if you're in a state/wing where ES gets used.  If your unit is located in a state where ES never gets activated or ES is dominated by a few key wing-level players and other ES-trained personnel never get invited to play, then it would actually serve to DIScourage cadets by building them up for something they will never get to do.  That's the same as training them for other things they can't or won't do like paintballing or white-water rafting or whatever.

Orientation Flights?  You need a plane nearby and pilots to do that.  If your unit is located in an area with few or no aircraft availability and no qualified pilots interesting in giving O-flights, then cadets aren't going to get O-rides.  Furthermore, do you really want to recruit, recruit, recruit with pictures of cadets flying in an aircraft (which implies that's a big portion of what we do) when CAP cadets only get 5 front-seat rides across their entire cadet career.  For many cadets that stick with the program, that's maybe only an hour or two in the front-seat of a CAP aircraft per year.   Do we think it's a good idea to sell someone on a program based on what the might be able to do 1% of the time they're involved with CAP?  That goes back to overselling what cadets do.

A realistic recruiting approach would be to sell the cadet program itself -- not the infrequent activities or the optional things outside the core components of the cadet program (so, not things like ES, NCC/CG/HG, Hawk Mtn or NCSAs, IACE, etc.).   

If a cadet comes into the program after seeing pictures of cadets drilling, doing PT, participating in a leadership exercise, doing hands-on AE activity, etc., you're probably a lot more likely to retain that cadet.  Then when you get a military orientation ride, or they get an o-flight or train for ES or CG or Wreathes Across America or whatever, that's icing on the cake to keep them motivated.  If they expect all those extras as a routine part of what they'll be doing at squadron meetings, they'll be terribly disappointed and much more likely to not stick with CAP.  Sell them on what you routinely do (and should be doing) at your squadron meetings.

[Pylon]

What I find more "disturbing" about www.gocivilairpatrol.com is the fact that there is no straightforward description of who we are of what we do as an organization.  What is our purpose and why should anyone care? 

That is pretty terrible.  There needs to be a succinct and poignant description of what Civil Air Patrol is and does prominently on the webiste home-page.

[Eclipse]

Fallacy #1:

ES training is only worthwhile if you're in a state/wing where ES gets used.  If your unit is located in a state where ES never gets activated or ES is dominated by a few key wing-level players and other ES-trained personnel never get invited to play, then it would actually serve to DIScourage cadets by building them up for something they will never get to do.  That's the same as training them for other things they can't or won't do like paintballing or white-water rafting or whatever.

For cadets, especially, the adventure experience and general knowledge value of ES training is the key.  That CAP is operational in most areas is a plus, however programs like the BSA, ACA, NSCC, etc., do plenty of direct and indirect ES training without even the prospect of ever being operational and are quite successful.

You might also be surprised how much you can do once you have a core group with actual skills and can start selling ES to local agencies.  ES "activation" is a very circular situation that requires constant relationship maintenance and extra effort.  Many people are not willing to go that extra mile, and then make excuses about higher HQ being at fault.

Wing is responsible for making sure that their overall mission is accomplished, and for coordinating multi-state efforts like Katrina and KY.  They aren't going to work with your local FD to see if you can help throw sandbags in a flood.  That's a local ESO's job, and its where a Unit CC should focus the attention.


Fallacy #2:

Orientation Flights?  You need a plane nearby and pilots to do that.  If your unit is located in an area with few or no aircraft availability and no qualified pilots interesting in giving O-flights, then cadets aren't going to get O-rides.  Furthermore, do you really want to recruit, recruit, recruit with pictures of cadets flying in an aircraft (which implies that's a big portion of what we do) when CAP cadets only get 5 front-seat rides across their entire cadet career. 

Airplanes can go anywhere, and pilots are generally very excited about flying for free.  A properly managed O-Ride program can bring the aircraft to you, including paying the pilots for the ferry time.  Cadets should also be encouraged to do 99 rides as well, and there's no limit to those.

A realistic recruiting approach would be to sell the cadet program itself -- not the infrequent activities or the optional things outside the core components of the cadet program (so, not things like ES, NCC/CG/HG, Hawk Mtn or NCSAs, IACE, etc.). 

Here I agree, but not for the reasons stated - instead of dialing-down the program because of situational excuses, dial-it up and overcome the challenges. 

[davedove]

My biggest gripe is how they've changed the location of the information for Level I.

Before the change, I could give new members a nice simple website to find their training:  http://www.cap.gov/one

Compare that to the new site:  http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cap_university/professional_development/afiadl__cap_student_page/level_one.cfm

Quite a difference, don't you think.  Which one do you think would be better for new members?

[Pylon]

My biggest gripe is how they've changed the location of the information for Level I.

Before the change, I could give new members a nice simple website to find their training:  http://www.cap.gov/one

Compare that to the new site:  http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cap_university/professional_development/afiadl__cap_student_page/level_one.cfm

Quite a difference, don't you think.  Which one do you think would be better for new members?

Not one single thing about the new website is good nor convenient.  Unfortunately, this was CAP's answer to supposedly needing to move away from the .gov due to requirement and compliance issues.

[Grumpy]

My biggest gripe is how they've changed the location of the information for Level I.

Before the change, I could give new members a nice simple website to find their training:  http://www.cap.gov/one

Compare that to the new site:  http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cap_university/professional_development/afiadl__cap_student_page/level_one.cfm

Quite a difference, don't you think.  Which one do you think would be better for new members?

Not one single thing about the new website is good nor convenient.  Unfortunately, this was CAP's answer to supposedly needing to move away from the .gov due to requirement and compliance issues.

I'm sitting down here in a local squadron and I find it very difficult to use the new system (not user friendly).  I wondered why all of a sudden we changed everything.  Ummm, interesting.