Removing "Cadet" "Senior" and "Composite" From Squadron Names

[RiverAux]

It occurs to me that having squadron names include "cadet", "senior", or "composite" serves no useful operrational purpose and to some extent may cause problems. 

1.  Don't Reflect Squadron Focus
They don't really reflect the focus of activity of a particular squadron as do regular military unit names.  For example if you join the 251st Weather Squadron its a pretty good bet your unit is going to focus on weather. 

In CAP, all the Ca/S/Co designations do is tell you about the organizational structure of that squadron.  A cadet squadron could be entirely focused on AE type activities, or almost entirely focused on SAR, or might not do anything other than drill teams.  Senior Squadrons are usually, but not always focused on flying, but that certainly isn't reflected by their "Senior" designation.

Meanwhile the hybrid Composite Squadron could actually represent probably several dozen different areas of focus that any particular squadron may represent. 

2.  Possibly Impair Public Affairs and Recruitment Activity
When you incorporate Ca/S/Co into the squadron names I believe it can hurt your public affairs and your recruiting efforts, though the impact will be a bit different depending on which type of unit you have.

       2a.  Cadet
If you've got a cadet squadron, you're probably going to have a lot harder time selling your unit as an ES resource just because everyone is going to automatically think of children rather than of a group that could help them.  And it can be very misleading.  Heck, you could be a Cadet Squadron with 20 senior members that are ground team qualfied.  You could be a cadet squadron with an assigned aircraft and 20 aircrew members.  But that isn't going to be what will come to most people's mind when they hear that the Jonesville Cadet Squadron wants to help out in a search. 

Also, with the "Cadet" moniker attached to your name, you are going to have a harder time recruiting adults because it tells them right up front that they're going to have a hard time getting support at the local level for their needs if they want to advance in the program. 

Now, I will say that the Cadet designation is the one of the three that does have some possible benefits in that it makes it absolutely clear to kids that hear about the unit that it is open to them and isn't just something for adults.  So, unlike the other two, it does have at least one positive aspect.

       2b.  Senior
The most obvious, and stereotypical, comment about this is that when you tell someone that you're in a CAP senior squadron they're going to think that all the members are senior citizens.  They might be, but it starts you off in a hole when describing your unit to folks.  If there are some positive external public relations benefits to being known as a "Senior" squadron, I'd like to hear them. 

      2c. Composite 
When someone hears that you're in a "Composite" Squadron they're going to be totally confused as that could mean just about anything.  Does this mean we fly airplanes made out of composite materials?  It does nothing but make your job harder in the PA/recruiting area. 

Proposal 1
My first proposal would be to remove Cadet, Composite, and Senior from Squadron names.  Instead of the Jonesville Composite Squadron, you would just have the Jonesville Squadron. 

This actually would bring us back to our roots as originally CAP squadrons were just named for their towns. 

Now, we would still want to keep these three types of organizational structures for administrative purposes(say you wanted to send out a notice about free cadet uniforms, you would need to know which units had cadets), but you don't need to have it in the unit name to do this.  There is actually already a column in CAPWATCH for unit type that takes care of this.  So, if someone wanted to a list of all the cadet squadrons, they could still get it. 

Proposal 2
Remove Senior and Composite from squadron names, but retain the Cadet Squadron as a distintive unit type.  What are now Composite and Senior units would just go by Jonesville Squadron while the cadet unit in Smithville would be the Smithville Cadet Squadron. 

As I said above there are some potential benefits to having a unit known as a Cadet Squadron.  I don't think they outweigh the negatives, but decided to give it as an option for voting as a compromise measure. 

[MIKE]

I think there is definite cause for Cadet Squadrons... Your 2a. paints it as a negative, but to me and my read of 52-16 and 20-1... that's the whole point.

In my experience, Composite Squadrons ended up being Cadet Squadrons with superfluous leadership and no real senior programs or operational role.

Haven't we beat this to death already... I'd swear we did.

[RiverAux]

I think our prior discussions have mostly focused on alternatives to using these designators and the upshot was that we never came close to something suitable to replace them.  So, this time, I thought we should consider just returning to CAP's original squadron naming scheme and dropping all the extra language. 

[PHall]

Is there a reason for this proposal, because I'm sure not seeing it.

And trying to use the military model won't work either.

Military units are formed to serve a specific function while CAP units don't really have a set function.

CAPR 20-1 even states that units will not be named for a specific function (i.e. rescue, communications, etc.).


So what problem are we trying to solve here?

[JohnKachenmeister]

First of all, since we don't really use our "Squadrons" as operational units, I'd like to do away with the term altogether.  What we really have are "Training Centers."  Since I don't think anybody else will concur with me that our units should be called "The West Podunk CAP Training Center" ot the "Elbow Bend CAP Training Center," I'd just go with calling all of our squadrons "CAP Squadrons"

"Civil Air Patrol Squadron - West Podunk" or "Civil Air Patrol Squadron - Elbow Bend."

Those named after a person could still memorialize him (or her).  The "Wrongway Corrigan Civil Air Patrol Squadron," for example.  Or the "Pancho Barnes Memorial Civil Air Patrol Squadron."

We can still organize them as composite, cadet, or senior, but I see no purpose in adding the squadron type to the name.

[RiverAux]

How about re-reading the post that heads the thread.  I explain the reasons for the proposal.  

And trying to use the military model won't work either.

Military units are formed to serve a specific function while CAP units don't really have a set function.

CAPR 20-1 even states that units will not be named for a specific function (i.e. rescue, communications, etc.).

I did not suggest moving to a military model, but instead returning to CAP's original squadron naming convention.  By way of your statement quoted above you're basically agreeing with my contention that our current designations aren't descriptive (with the possible exception of Cadet Squadrons) either.

[Flying Pig]

A solution looking for a problem.

[PHall]

A solution looking for a problem.

+1

[Eclipse]

Haven't we beat this to death already... I'd swear we did.

Yes, we did.

They aren't working because of poor leadership and commanders who treat our program like a menu.

[Stonewall]

Honestly, I don't care either way, but if given a choice, I'd lose the designators.

I've always dropped the squadron type when talking about my squadrons.

Jacksonville Squadron

Fairfax Squadron

Mount Vernon Squadron.

In fact, on all 3 squadron badges it doesn't identify the type.

[Hawk200]

Not sure I see the point of dropping the identifiers. If you have a composite unit acting as a cadet unit, then rename it. Since the type is part of the name, then change it to reflect what's going on.

When it comes to patches and correspondance, don't use the type term. You won't have to change patches or letterheads.

Not really a solution to anything. If people aren't getting the idea of what you do when you attempt to recruit them, then you're not explaining it properly or expanding on what you should. Recruiting is all about explaining where someone would fit, not leaving them hanging. Uncle Sam type posters/statements of "I want you!" don't work for us. We're not as well known.

[Always Ready]

In a perfect organization (ran by CAPTalkers worldwide), I would say drop them hard and fast. I agree with RiverAux that sometimes they do more harm than good.

But since this is Civil Air Patrol as we know it, I would say leave it alone ...for now... and fix all of the other problems we have.

[RiverAux]

Though my position is losing the vote, I'm actually somewhat encouraged by the level of support for this.  I thought it would be more like 10%. 

Since the type is part of the name, then change it to reflect what's going on.

The type doesn't actually do ANYTHING to explain what is actually going on in any particular unit. 

[Hawk200]

Though my position is losing the vote, I'm actually somewhat encouraged by the level of support for this.  I thought it would be more like 10%. 

Since the type is part of the name, then change it to reflect what's going on.

The type doesn't actually do ANYTHING to explain what is actually going on in any particular unit. 

That's why you should change the name. You stated "Heck, you could be a Cadet Squadron with 20 senior members that are ground team qualfied.  You could be a cadet squadron with an assigned aircraft and 20 aircrew members." That's not a unit functioning as a cadet unit, it's a composite squadron. The name and type should be changed to "Composite".

Also, as I said, don't put type on patches, letterheads, etc. Saves time, money, confusion. Even Air Force personnel just refer to their squadron number at times. Most airman know the mission of their local units. When it comes to CAP, just explain it when you're recruiting.

[RiverAux]

I can understand those that are voting no because they're used to the existing system and don't buy the reasons for change that I stated. 

However, I'd like to ask those folks to take a step back and provide some reasons WHY we should have Cadet, Senior, or Composite in the squadron names in the first place.  Imagine that we were starting from scratch.  How does including those names help us in any way? 

The only benefit I came up with for Cadet was stated above and I think that is pretty weak.  I don't think JROTC units have "cadet" in their name yet the kids figure out that when the join JROTC that they actually aren't joining the US Army.  So as a recruiting draw for youths, it certainly isn't necessary.   

[wacapgh]

How about just dropping "Composite"? I just did a quick search on my own wing, and didn't see a single "Cadet" or "Senior" unit listed. However, the NHQ search limits to "within 50 miles of XXXX" so my apologies to anyone  that I missed.

I also imagine that nationwide,  it's similar. "Not-Composite" is the case for a relatively small percentage of units.

[fireplug]

However, I'd like to ask those folks to take a step back and provide some reasons WHY we should have Cadet, Senior, or Composite in the squadron names in the first place. sary.   

WIWAC, back around 1955, some squadrons were designated as "Cadet Squadron, Separate". This indicated it was not part of a Senior Squadron. I don't recall the Senior Sq in my town beig designated as such, nor do I recall the term "Composite" squadron.

[Grumpy]

I think there is definite cause for Cadet Squadrons... Your 2a. paints it as a negative, but to me and my read of 52-16 and 20-1... that's the whole point.

In my experience, Composite Squadrons ended up being Cadet Squadrons with superfluous leadership and no real senior programs or operational role.

Haven't we beat this to death already... I'd swear we did.

I agree with what you're saying about Composits Squadrons.  Ours is a composite but it may as well be a Cadet Squadron with the lack of ES missions we go on and the emphasis we place on cadet activities.

The good thing about having the three separate squadrons is that they are easier to find on your wing listings thus easier to tell some prospective cadet member where to find a cadet squadron in his/her area.

[RiverAux]

The good thing about having the three separate squadrons is that they are easier to find on your wing listings thus easier to tell some prospective cadet member where to find a cadet squadron in his/her area.

You can easily list them any way you want without it actually being in the squadron name. 

[flyerthom]

At this time it would serve no useful purpose except change for cosmetics.

1) The cost of changing unit specific hats and patches is expensive and with the economic hit many members have taken inadvisable.

2) Units can not afford the changes to letterheads and other necessary office materials.

3) We have serious branding issues already without the added time and confusion to propagate name changes.

4) There are far more important issues that require time and attention.

5) If it ain't broke - don't fix it. This is a solution in search of a problem.