Talk:Civil Air Patrol/Archive 1

message: Who pays for the CAP?  Does it own aircraft and ground facilities?   How many permanent staff versus how man volunteers?  What relationship to Air National Guard, if any?  Ortolan88
I removed the sentence fragment noting that the national commanded is usually an active-duty USAF Colonel, as this has not been the case for some time. I also reworded the section involving the command structure of CAP, adding information about small wings not being divided into groups at all. Merenta 16:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

message: I just looked at the CAP history page at the CAP Historypage. This wiki is plagiarized. We need a new article.
:Yes, it seems that despite the .gov domain this is a nonprofit corporation, not an arm of the U.S. Federal Government; it can therefore own copyright. --rbrwr± 23:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Civil Air Patrol runs under a strange catagory. Dispite it being a nonprofit corporation, it's still under direct jurisdiction of the United States Air Force. However, I suppose the volunteer status would force the copyright issue. If no one expresses interest in creating a new page, I will do it in my spare time (har har). Linuxbeak 01:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Issues 

message: In my opinion, it is very important to have a section in this article that makes it very clear that the CAP is not a branch of the United States Armed Forces and that CAP members are never placed in command of active duty U.S. troops.  This was actually in the article quite some time ago, but edited out long ago probably through routine cleanups and not by any design to hide this info.  Anyway, this group is confusing to non U.S. folks who see it as simply a branch of the Air Force.  And, as a military reservist, I cant tell you how many times Ive bumped into CAP people who demanded to know why the active military did not salute them.  Not that all CAP people are like that, of course, just thats its a point of confusion within the CAP itself. -Husnock 09:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have the changes User:Husnock suggested been made, does anybody think the article needs some further clairfication?  If so, where should we put it?  I know there is a section within the Cadet Programs part of the article about Cadets and the Military, but that doesn't seem like a good place to put this.  It would need to be somewhere that includes all members, both seniors and cadets. Grant 03:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think that the quoted excerpt is accurate as-is. The UCMJ does establish who does, and who does not, have command authority over others, and that really has nothing to do with "who is subject to the UCMJ" in the sense of who can be court-martialed. For example, the President of the United States has command authority over the military, while he himself is not "subject to the UCMJ". Perhaps this could be explained better in the article, but the accuracy is not really in question. Also, your statement about CAP members not being subject to the UCMJ is not 100% accurate. What you probably meant to say was that "CAP members are not subject to the UCMJ unless they are members of the military", since of course there are many CAP members that are also members of the armed forces. Merenta 15:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: To my knowledge, CAP chaplains cannot be deployed overseas as a function of being a CAP chaplain. Of course there are CAP chaplains that have gone overseas, I know at least one, but they are being sent there as a function of being in the Army Reserve or some such, not as a CAP chaplain. --OuroborosCobra 07:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CAP and the Military

message: Looking forward to when these current debates are behind us, I want to discuss how we intend to archive this page.  I think we should archive it by sub-topic, since most of the discussions seem to be on specific topics.  Right now this talk page is very hard to read, and I think it would be well served from some solid cleaning.  What does everybody think about making sub-pages to archive these discussions by topic?  Grant 00:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. McNeight 02:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk Page Archive 

message: Today, the Civil Air Patrol Search and Rescue missions are conducted by an elite team of highly trained Senior Members and Cadets. The Ranger program is a comprehensive training program with a Air Force designed curriculum. The training takes place at two locations. One, is the well known "Hawk Mountain Ranger School" located in Pennsylvania. The other school is located on a small former missile base in South Florida, otherwise known as the "Falcon Ranger School". Both schools offer the same intense training. The curriculum includes basic to advanced survival techniques, medical assistance training, basic to advanced navigation, and basic to advanced search and rescue theory. Ranger school takes place once a month except during the winter and summer in which a 9 day activity takes place for medic and/or staff trainees. Each Ranger trainee is required to prove their knowledge and skill through numerous tests before they receive their Search and Rescue patch. After receiving the Ranger 2nd Class rating or "R2", they then may begin other training courses such as medic and staff training (the hardest of the two). The final level is "Master Ranger", the notorious "black shirts" or "black belts" of the Civil Air Patrol. Very few have reached that level. To see the list, refer to the Hawk Mountain Ranger School website. Typical R2 training lasts about eight to ten months, and the drop out rate is the highest among the various activities in the Civil Air Patrol.
So, what to do? In some areas, this would merit an article all by itself. It seems that Florida Wing has copied the Hawk Mountain model and "made it their own". Compare http://pawg.cap.gov/hawk/ with http://www.flrangers.com/. Should there perhaps be a separate article for detailed information about Ranger training? McNeight 04:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, duh. (I mean this in the nicest way possible, of course ;-) )Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranger School Text 

message: This was already discussed (see the link dispute talk page), and apparently someone removed this quietly and without me noticing. I'm going to readd it. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-adding 102nd Composite Squadron reference 

message: Should 'Space Camp/Aviation Challenge' remain on the NCSA list, since it is not a CAP activity, and the only major affiliation is that you can wear the NCSA ribbon for attending?JColgan 01:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Camp/Aviation Challenge on NCSA List 

message: Under Civil_Air_Patrol#Senior_members, this should be edited: 'Senior members are those who are over 21 years old, or who joined CAP for the first time past the age of 18.'  Anyone 18-20 can be a flight officer, and the majority of flight officers are cadets who become senior members before age 21. JColgan 01:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Well, what's stopping you? ;-) Seriously, though, if you feel that it needs to be changed, go ahead. Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 01:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eh, I didn't like any of the possible revisions I had in my head, so I figured somebody else would come up with something that sounds nice. JColgan 01:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Any cadet, upon turning 18, can request to become a senior member. They have the option to do that at any time from when they turn 18 until they turn 21, and are required to become a senior member. Yes, when they become senior members they outrank any cadets, including those in the 18-21 age bracket, since all senior members outrank all cadets. Yes, this can cause problems where an 18 year old senior member outranks a 20 year old cadet. On the whole, this is just a matter of both parties needing to be mature enough to deal with it. --OuroborosCobra 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I was a cadet in the mid '70s, it was my experience that younger senior members were generally not put in a position where they were directly supervising cadets, although, there were (and probably still are) exceptions.  --rogerd 04:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That is still the general practice (at least in good units), but is not required by regulations. --OuroborosCobra 19:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senior Members 

message: this award has been tagged for merge into the main article for the CAP. shall we leave it with the article for all of the other awards, instead?
-Lordraydens 09:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neil Armstrong Achievement 

message: i found some hi-res images for all 3 ranks of flight officer. they are from an official CAP site so if somebody whos in wants to grab them and throw them into the insignia table...
http://bncadets.miwg.cap.gov/gallery/senior/insignia/fligthofficer.gif (notice the file name is misspelled)
http://bncadets.miwg.cap.gov/gallery/senior/insignia/techflightofficer.gif
http://bncadets.miwg.cap.gov/gallery/senior/insignia/seniorflightofficer.gif
-Lordraydens 11:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks much. -- Scetoaux 00:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flight Officer Insignia 

message: Hey, I was wondering which squadron is the biggest. If you could find that out I would appriciate it (I'm not that good at finding sources and I'm a tad busy--Cadet hastings 04:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cadet, this is not a chat forum.  Talk pages are for discussing facets of the article, not CAP in general. -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I didn't think asking what the largest squadron was was chatting, I still fail to see how it is chatting on the discussion page though... I just was wondering, and I could not find it in the article so I asked here.--Cadet hastings 13:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings Cadet.  It wasn't intended as criticism, just to point out how these pages work.  I just noticed that someone had changed the formatting of this page to imply that non-article subjects could be discussed, and I've changed this back.  Talk pages are intended for discussion and commentary on issued affecting the article, and not for general question-and-answer or chat sessions.  I would direct you to CAP Talk forums for this.  Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest squadron 

message: I tightened up the introduction - which hadn't been changed since before the extensive history was added - by removing pieces of fairly in-depth historical information that were included are the history and you stuck them back in there. We also have some conflicts on what should and should not be included as links. Plus, Linuxbeak, I notice that all the links to your squadron's page that you maintain are back. I say we've got some issues here and I'm going to the Third Opinion page for a neutral opinion. - NetSerfer 13:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction Dispute

message: Added a sentence about CAP members patrolling for japanese fire ballons in WWII. When I was a cadet, one of the older CAP members in the Wing (MT) used to tell stories about riding around in his plane with a shotgun looking for these. Unfortunatly, the gentleman passed away several years ago and I don't have any further information. Hopefully someone can elaborate on this. —preceding unsigned comment by 24.214.89.26 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very interesting. Would you be able to provide a print or online source for this? Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 12:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese Fire Balloons 

message: Everyone, take a step back and calm down.  A WP:3RR violation has occurred, although I am not going to block yet, depending on the subsequent behavior, since there was no prior warning.  However, regardless of whether a block happens, if this keeps up, I will protect the page from editing.  --Nlu 01:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me clarify; no WP:3RR violation has happened today.  The violation was in the past, and that's another reason not to block right now, but folks, please do turn it down.  --Nlu 01:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tune this down, please 

message: By my count, the next revert on this page is going to be a 3RR violation.  Be warned.  --Nlu 23:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, scratch that.  Going back further, I've determined that 68.112.201.90 has violated 3RR.  He will therefore be blocked.  McNeight, be forwarned that your next revert will be a 3RR violation as well.  --Nlu 23:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood, but no further reverts are needed. McNeight 23:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More about 3RR