ES Qaulification Badge Proposal

[Майор Хаткевич]

Do we really need more badges?

I don't think we do, but apparently I'm alone on this, in the festival of Cosplay that CAP (and CAPTALK) occasionally become.

Todays stats on posts in Captalk:
"Uniforms and Awards" group: 95,772 posts

... where this isn't even a core Mission, but of those three, we have:
"ES and Operations" group: 37,408 posts (only 39% as much interest as badges)
"Cadet Programs" group: 24,980 posts (only 26% as much interest as uniforms)
"Aerospace Education" group: a paltry 4,348 posts (not even 5% as much interest in aerospace as in dress up).


What an organization this could be, were we to redirect this enthusiasm towards planning, organizing, and conducting meaningful training, on providing interesting and educational AE content, and having exciting and useful mentoring and development of cadets. (and yeah, once again, I've done my share of cosplay at 'Cons, in my day, so I get the impulse to play dress up and yeah, I get that the ribbons are they only pay for some).


Arajca, I apologize if this isn't the constructive commentary that you were looking for, but in honesty you seem to be a highly motivated, intelligent, well organized officer, who has so much to offer, beyond mere uniform proposals. I would LOVE to see AE, ES, or CP modules from you, instead - I'd bet they'd be outstanding.


V/R
Spam

To be fair, most of the new members on this board tend to start a LOT of "how do I wear X" topics, which bring on a lot of answers.

[Storm Chaser]

A mission base badge is not a terrible idea, I supposed. But I still don't think we need all the badges that are being proposed on this thread.

One thing I would like to see regarding these badges is a term correction on the next revision of CAPM 39-1. I would like the term for these badges to change from "occupational" badges to "qualification" badges, which is what they really are. CAPM 39-1 borrowed the term from the Air Force, which does have occupational badges. Our specialty track badges are the closest thing to Air Force occupational badges, although they're a different shape and color, and are worn in the a different location.

[arajca]

I have read the comments here and I am revising my proposal. I'm still not dealing with the aeronautical badges at this time. I am going to infuriate the GT folks by proposing a consolidated "Field Team" badge for GT, UDF and the various DR qualifications. The current GT badges would be phased out. FTM - member and FTL - Team Leader are defined. I'm leaning toward a Strike Team Leader qual for the master level FT badge. Let's be realistic, GBD is not a field qualification. Getting there requires field training, but the qualification itself is not a field qualification. Just like AOBD is not a flying qualification.

This would lead to just 3 non-flying ES qualification badges - Base Staff, Field Teams, and Incident Commander. Not a huge increase in badges, just adding 1 and replacing another.

[etodd]

Do we really need more badges?

Doesn't the 101 card cover it? Fits in your wallet and no worries about how to wear it.

[Storm Chaser]

I have read the comments here and I am revising my proposal. I'm still not dealing with the aeronautical badges at this time. I am going to infuriate the GT folks by proposing a consolidated "Field Team" badge for GT, UDF and the various DR qualifications. The current GT badges would be phased out. FTM - member and FTL - Team Leader are defined. I'm leaning toward a Strike Team Leader qual for the master level FT badge. Let's be realistic, GBD is not a field qualification. Getting there requires field training, but the qualification itself is not a field qualification. Just like AOBD is not a flying qualification.

This would lead to just 3 non-flying ES qualification badges - Base Staff, Field Teams, and Incident Commander. Not a huge increase in badges, just adding 1 and replacing another.

I think a few details need to be worked out, but it seems like a more reasonable proposal now.

[PHall]

Do we really need more badges?

Doesn't the 101 card cover it? Fits in your wallet and no worries about how to wear it.

People like bling...

[HGjunkie]

I have read the comments here and I am revising my proposal. I'm still not dealing with the aeronautical badges at this time. I am going to infuriate the GT folks by proposing a consolidated "Field Team" badge for GT, UDF and the various DR qualifications. The current GT badges would be phased out. FTM - member and FTL - Team Leader are defined. I'm leaning toward a Strike Team Leader qual for the master level FT badge. Let's be realistic, GBD is not a field qualification. Getting there requires field training, but the qualification itself is not a field qualification. Just like AOBD is not a flying qualification.

This would lead to just 3 non-flying ES qualification badges - Base Staff, Field Teams, and Incident Commander. Not a huge increase in badges, just adding 1 and replacing another.

Much better proposal IMO. Consolidation is the key... to airpower!

[Storm Chaser]

Do we really need more badges?

Doesn't the 101 card cover it? Fits in your wallet and no worries about how to wear it.

People like bling...

Correction: many CAP members like bling...

...and if some of them can get it in a single weekend, even better.

[arajca]

I have read the comments here and I am revising my proposal. I'm still not dealing with the aeronautical badges at this time. I am going to infuriate the GT folks by proposing a consolidated "Field Team" badge for GT, UDF and the various DR qualifications. The current GT badges would be phased out. FTM - member and FTL - Team Leader are defined. I'm leaning toward a Strike Team Leader qual for the master level FT badge. Let's be realistic, GBD is not a field qualification. Getting there requires field training, but the qualification itself is not a field qualification. Just like AOBD is not a flying qualification.

This would lead to just 3 non-flying ES qualification badges - Base Staff, Field Teams, and Incident Commander. Not a huge increase in badges, just adding 1 and replacing another.

Much better proposal IMO. Consolidation is the key... to airpower!

Unless you're a ground pounder, then you do NOT want the CAS mission consolidated with air superiority mission. Sorry, the F-series are great aircraft, but they can't do the CAS mission like an aircraft built around a really big gun.

[arajca]

Ok, here is the updated version.

[Eclipse]

This shows a lot of thought and effort, but I can' t get behind it - it's trying to align too many things as "equal"
that aren't, not to mention the issue of adding / changing the entire ES structure from a bling perspective before its
been demonstrated that it needs to be changed from an operational perspective.

The effort, for example, to get to Air or Ground is not the same as CUL, and a CERT team or PODs team is certainly not equal in effort or
duties to a GTM3 or UDF.  I'd have no issue with different badges that actually identify the position, but having them all the same doesn't work.

I've said for years I'd have no issue with a general ICS staff badge, but trying to align these disparate duties, absent an entire rework is putting the
cart before the horse. 

Rework the entire ES framework first, then talk about badges if necessary.

[Storm Chaser]

This shows a lot of thought and effort, but I can' t get behind it - it's trying to align too many things as "equal"
that aren't, not to mention the issue of adding / changing the entire ES structure from a bling perspective before its
been demonstrated that it needs to be changed from an operational perspective.

The effort, for example, to get to Air or Ground is not the same as CUL, and a CERT team or PODs team is certainly not equal in effort or
duties to a GTM3 or UDF.  I'd have no issue with different badges that actually identify the position, but having them all the same doesn't work.

I've said for years I'd have no issue with a general ICS staff badge, but trying to align these disparate duties, absent an entire rework is putting the
cart before the horse. 

Rework the entire ES framework first, then talk about badges if necessary.

+1

With this proposal, you can go from Basic to Master depending on the specialty. Why link the badges to specialties anyway? Why not make it based on sorties/missions and time, just like aircrew badges?

I also don't like the incident command staff badges as they look too much like the incident commander badges.

[Angus]

This shows a lot of thought and effort, but I can' t get behind it - it's trying to align too many things as "equal"
that aren't, not to mention the issue of adding / changing the entire ES structure from a bling perspective before its
been demonstrated that it needs to be changed from an operational perspective.

The effort, for example, to get to Air or Ground is not the same as CUL, and a CERT team or PODs team is certainly not equal in effort or
duties to a GTM3 or UDF.  I'd have no issue with different badges that actually identify the position, but having them all the same doesn't work.

I've said for years I'd have no issue with a general ICS staff badge, but trying to align these disparate duties, absent an entire rework is putting the
cart before the horse. 

Rework the entire ES framework first, then talk about badges if necessary.

I agree whole heartedly, this rework is more about the bling than anything else.  Let's rework the ES framework to reflect the current ES missions we're currently working then if we need to come back to the bling.

[Storm Chaser]

I agree. We have several specialty qualifications listed in CAPR 60-3 that never got an SQTR. We also have an increasing DR role with no specific training or qualification to support it. And many of our SQTRs and Task Guides are in need of an overhaul. This proposal is not without its merits, but another badge should be at the bottom of the priority list right now.

[arajca]

To all those complaining about the qualifications and whether the current framework should be overhauled before I submit my proposal, let's see YOUR proposals for that.

[Eclipse]

To all those complaining about the qualifications and whether the current framework should be overhauled before I submit my proposal, let's see YOUR proposals for that.

You don't have to know how to fix a tire to recognize it's flat.

[arajca]

You're complaining about it. Try fixing it.

[Eclipse]

You're complaining about it. Try fixing it.

That's an ad hominem.  I'm not tasked with, nor in a position to "fix" CAP's ES framework, nor is anyone asking me to.

That doesn't change the fact that anyone looking to make impactful, meaningful change, shouldn't be starting from the badges,
they should be starting from the "mission", and frankly what the "mission" is, isn't clear to anyone anymore.

Until NHQ sorts that out, these conversations will be like a company trying to do ISO 9000 and Six Sigma with one project team.

For example, I would argue DR is not a separate qual from GT, just a definition of protocol and ability, and CERT isn't a CAP "thing"
and we certainly shouldn't be giving it a CAP badge. These two items alone complicated enough.

[Storm Chaser]

I think adding DR specific tasks to the GT specialties would help with the training and qualification part. Alternatively, DR could be an add-on to the GT qualifications. Frankly, there's more than one way to address our current gap. But one thing is certain, if we want to expand our role in DR, we need more DR focused training.

[RogueLeader]

But one thing is certain, if we want to expand our role in DR, we need more DR focused training.

Such as?

Not that I disagree, but am curious as to what you envision.