Available dates for service

[nomiddlemas]

Hey I was looking at all of the ES stuff on my profile.  I noticed that there was a section about the times availabe to respond.  Do we need to fill this out? I have heard that this part does not matter but im not sure. 

[Eclipse]

Few, if any, wings use this system, if yours did, you'd probably have been informed by your Wing OPS people to complete it.

[RiverAux]

I haven't looked in a while, but is there even a function in eservices that lets you search on that information?  Even if there was I'm not sure I'd depend on it since such generalized info isn't likely to be accurate at any given time. 

[nomiddlemas]

If you are GES rated the chances of you getting picked to go on a mission are kind of low correct?

[SarDragon]

If you are GES rated the chances of you getting picked to go on a mission are kind of low correct?

Just GES rated? No chance at all. Simply sticking your name on a call-out list guarantees nothing.

You need to be qualified in something before you can be productive on an actual mission. Training happens at the unit level, and on SAREXs, which you generally sign up for ahead of time.

[fokkerfrenzy]

You cannot go on a SAR mission until you are ground team or udf qualified, but you can still do disaster relief stuff with just GES, as is my understanding.

[Eclipse]

Really? As what?

[fokkerfrenzy]

Disaster assessment, food/water hander-outer, etc. 

[Eclipse]

Disaster assessment, food/water hander-outer, etc.

No SQTR, no play.

[fokkerfrenzy]

It's just what I've been told/ what I've done in the past.  I was told by several experienced people, including a former wing ES director, that all you need to have for disaster relief is GES and IS-100/700.

And personally, many years ago (I know things change, I'm just throwing it out there) I did DR with just GES and a 101T.

[Eclipse]

They were wrong, there is no channel for GES people to do anything, especially DR.

Please cite anything beyond "I was told."

[Huey Driver]

I wish I had facts and numbers to cite here, but there were a tremendous amount of people with no ES specialties who did DR with Hurricane Sandy. Personally, I'd say that over half of the members I worked with on the ground only had GES and maybe some ICS courses on their 101 Card.

In fact, I believe that the NER and MER could never have accomplished what they did, if it weren't for the GES-only volunteers.

They all earned the same Disaster Relief Ribbon with "V" Device as I did.

[Eclipse]

You're actually citing the PROBLEM not the justification.

In true CAP fashion, they ignored the rules for expediency.

There's no point in having the disfunctional architechture  of rules and regs if CAP is just going to ignore them
when it starts raining.

Pick a major mission in the last ten years and that was / is basically CAP's script.

[Panache]

food/water hander-outer

Is there a badge for that?  'cause we really need a badge for that.

[Huey Driver]

In true CAP fashion, they ignored the rules for expediency.

There's no point in having the disfunctional architechture  of rules and regs if CAP is just going to ignore them
when it starts raining.

Pick a major mission in the last ten years and that was / is basically CAP's script.

Yeah, all true. Believe me, I'm all for having qualified personnel on these missions, but I see why ICs often choose expediency over the regs' rulings.

So in that sense, nomiddlemas, you might be requested to participate in a mission. But do yourself and your ES guys a favor; pursue an ES specialty.

[Fubar]

Is there a badge for that?  'cause we really need a badge for that.

I'm sure there is a ribbon in the works.

[fokkerfrenzy]

They were wrong, there is no channel for GES people to do anything, especially DR.

Please cite anything beyond "I was told."

What reg addresses this?  Is there one?

[Eclipse]

60-1 & 60-3.

[fokkerfrenzy]

There are a few places that affirm this, but the most succinct is:

From CAPR 60-3 (2-2 sec.b)

"Trainees can still participate in training or actual missions as allowed on their CAPF 101 if working under qualified supervisors..."

[GrimReaper]

Below is the excerpt from CAPR 60-3 CAP Emergency Services Training and Operational Missions 26 December 2012, para 2-3

The General Emergency Services specialty rating is required of all individuals qualifying in emergency services and will be completed prior to commencing training for any other specialty. This training authorizes members to attend missions, observe activities and perform administrative and general operations support tasks under the direction of qualified staff personnel, essentially as a license to learn.

[JeffDG]

They were wrong, there is no channel for GES people to do anything, especially DR.

Please cite anything beyond "I was told."

CAPR 60-3, 2-3(g)

g. There are some duty positions that CAP does not have specific specialty qualifications identified. Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member to fill these gaps in order to meet the needs of the mission, but must use good judgment to select personnel who have the appropriate training and backgrounds to be able to successfully complete their assignment.

There are no "DR" qualifications (with the exception of SAR/DR Mission Pilot), as such, it's within the IC's discretion to use anyone with a GES for those taskings.

I presume you will withdraw the "They were wrong" comment now that specific regulatory authorization has been cited.

[JeffDG]

You're actually citing the PROBLEM not the justification.

In true CAP fashion, they ignored the rules for expediency.

There's no point in having the disfunctional architechture  of rules and regs if CAP is just going to ignore them
when it starts raining.

Pick a major mission in the last ten years and that was / is basically CAP's script.

Nope.  This type of GES-only volunteer is specifically authorized and anticipated by CAPR 60-3.

There is no SQTR for any of the common DR taskings, like shelter stuff (handing out food/water) or door-to-door checks on people.  As such, CAPR 60-3 specifically authorizes ICs to select people with GES and appropriate training (Hey, go to the cooler, grab a bunch of bottles and hand them out to whoever is thirsty.  There, you're trained.) to perform those tasks.

[JeffDG]

They were wrong, there is no channel for GES people to do anything, especially DR.

Please cite anything beyond "I was told."

Haven't seen you cite anything for your assertion yet...so I guess people can just "I was told." by you, then?

[Eclipse]

They were wrong, there is no channel for GES people to do anything, especially DR.

Please cite anything beyond "I was told."

Haven't seen you cite anything for your assertion yet...so I guess people can just "I was told." by you, then?

You can't cite a negative.  60-1 & 60-3 have your answers in simple form.

[Eclipse]

Nope.  This type of GES-only volunteer is specifically authorized and anticipated by CAPR 60-3.

100% wrong.  Note even a little.

Your turn to cite.

Don't bother with the "IC may assign reasonable duties" nonsesne.  That's not applicable to this example.

GES is a "license to learn".

Period.

If members want to participate in these activities
as community service or a unit activity, so be it, as long it's properly approved.  But leave any pretense
that's it's got anything to do with ES, or that it qualifies for decorations at the door.

[JeffDG]

Your turn to cite.

CAPR 60-3, 2-3(g)

Still haven't seen a cite from you, other than your word.

[JeffDG]

Don't bother with the "IC may assign reasonable duties" nonsesne.  That's not applicable to this example.

If there's no SQTR for the job, then the IC can assign any GES qualified member.  DR jobs don't have specific training or SQTR, it is 100% applicable.

[Eclipse]

No. If there's no SQTR we don't do it, and certainly not
as GES.

[JeffDG]

No. If there's no SQTR we don't do it, and certainly not
as GES.

So, CAPR 60-3, 2-3g has been taken out of the regs then? 

Do you have a reference that "If there's no SQTR we don't do it"?

What SQTR trains people on handing out water at a shelter?  Or doing door-to-door checks in disaster areas?  These are legit DR tasking that we do all the time, and there's no SQTR for them, and according to the version of CAPR 60-3 that is on http://capmembers.com (not the super-secret version that you seem to have), they are most certainly taskings that an IC can assign to someone who has GES.

Here's the publicly available 60-3 reference again:

g. There are some duty positions that CAP does not have specific specialty qualifications identified. Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member to fill these gaps in order to meet the needs of the mission, but must use good judgment to select personnel who have the appropriate training and backgrounds to be able to successfully complete their assignment.

"There are some duty positions that CAP does not have specific specialty qualifications identified" sounds an awful lot like "There are things we do that do not have SQTRs", and "Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member" sounds an awful lot like GES-only members can fully participate.

[Eclipse]

Mental hoops so that people with incomplete training can play ES, despite not having the proper credentials and qualifications.

Whatever, do what you want.  Clearly you and many others with the same attitude will, and the leadership
supports this position since we wouldn't want to actually say no.

[JeffDG]

Mental hoops so that people with incomplete training can play ES, despite not having the proper credentials and qualifications.

Whatever, do what you want.  Clearly you and many others with the same attitude will, and the leadership
supports this position since we wouldn't want to actually say no.

So, still no cite for your position?

I've quoted the clear and unambiguous language of the regulations.  You're the one who said:

No SQTR, no play.

And:

They were wrong, there is no channel for GES people to do anything, especially DR.

Please cite anything beyond "I was told."

You asked for it, I cited the applicable regulation.  How hard is it to actually say:  "You know, I was wrong, the regulations do permit that.  Sorry."

For someone who criticizes people for trusting the word of "some guy", you act as "some guy" an awful lot.

[fokkerfrenzy]

I'm just confused.  Regs supports it, but you think it's stupid so it's just wrong?  I'm just trying to understand where your interpretation is coming from, besides 'I don't think we should'. 

I'm not trying to be rude, but I think opinion was thrown out as fact, and you got checked on it.  It doesn't need to be a sour mess, just let's all learn from it and move forward amicably.

[Eclipse]

The regs do NOT support it, despite the assertions.

I do not agree that GES allows for anything other then "learning", nor are ICs allowed to just make up additional duties
because they said so.

DR is not even a doctrine of CAP beyond lip service.  The ability to fill in gaps is there for the occasional, emergency
need within the existing lane of operations, not a blanket allowance to venture into areas not normally covered by
CAP, or allow a blanket lane to allow untrained, ill-prepared members into DA's.

These assertions are ridiculous, watering-down of the program, allowed to pacify people for the sake of retention
instead of protecting them, and the people we seek to serve.

[JeffDG]

The regs do NOT support it, despite the assertions.

OK, I've quoted the applicable regulation.  Where's your backup?

Basically what I'm getting from you is:  "I don't care what the regulation says, I think it should be this way, so the regulation is wrong"

[JeffDG]

The regs do NOT support it, despite the assertions.

So, I take it from your complete lack of regulatory citation to counter my quoting of clear and unambiguous regulatory language fro CAPR 60-3, 2-3g, that your position is that everyone should, in this case, believe some guy with no backup, rather than believing the regulations.

[FlyTiger77]

The regs do NOT support it, despite the assertions.

"Shut up," he explained.

[Ed Bos]

Eclipse, you're wrong.

Because someone has GES, they are eligible to be assigned duties on missions. They should not be sent out as Mission Pilots or Ground Team Leaders, because they should be evaluated in those roles before they're assigned.

That does not preclude an IC from assigning a GES-only member from assisting with sand bagging, door knocking, or other skills that can be reasonably carried out.

I've had this discussion several times with Wing/DOSs, CAP/DO, and other folks at NESA. the consensus is that ICs get to use good judgement in these circumstances. The reg cited earlier is exactly the place where this is outlined.

That said, what do people. think should be included in a proposed Disaster Relief qualification? Should there be a thread for that sort of discussion, or has there been already?

[JeffDG]

Eclipse, you're wrong.

Because someone has GES, they are eligible to be assigned duties on missions. They should not be sent out as Mission Pilots or Ground Team Leaders, because they should be evaluated in those roles before they're assigned.

That does not preclude an IC from assigning a GES-only member from assisting with sand bagging, door knocking, or other skills that can be reasonably carried out.

I've had this discussion several times with Wing/DOSs, CAP/DO, and other folks at NESA. the consensus is that ICs get to use good judgement in these circumstances. The reg cited earlier is exactly the place where this is outlined.

That said, what do people. think should be included in a proposed Disaster Relief qualification? Should there be a thread for that sort of discussion, or has there been already?

I would strengthen that in saying they cannot "be sent out as Mission Pilots or Ground Team Leaders."  The exception in CAPR 60-3. 2-3g is clear that it only applies to tasks for which we do not have specialty training.  So a GES-only member cannot be sent out as a Mission Scanner (as we have an SQTR for that), but can be sent out to hand out water at a shelter (we don't have a SQTR for that).

[Ed Bos]

Great point, JeffDG. I should have worded that the way you've pointed out.

[SunDog]

Never knew it was an issue; quite a few GES folks assisted in tornado aftermath in my wing - clean up, shelter work, things like that.  If I recall right, some of them worked under Red Cross supervision.  No controversy at the time, or after. Wing management proceeded as if it was routine, and there was no doubt about the authority to do so.

Freely admit to not reading the cite above, since it didn't/doesn't have personal applicability. But for humanity's sake, don't plant the idea about a DR SQTR; we don't need another low impact, high mantenance process/paper/procedure.  It'll become another paper chase that exalts the trivial and ignores the essential.

[Brit_in_CAP]

**Snipped rest of the text to emphasize the last piece
** But for humanity's sake, don't plant the idea about a DR SQTR; we don't need another low impact, high mantenance process/paper/procedure.  It'll become another paper chase that exalts the trivial and ignores the essential.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[JeffDG]

**Snipped rest of the text to emphasize the last piece
** But for humanity's sake, don't plant the idea about a DR SQTR; we don't need another low impact, high mantenance process/paper/procedure.  It'll become another paper chase that exalts the trivial and ignores the essential.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Concur.  The creation of a "DR SQTR" would eliminate our flexibility to use people to do jobs that don't require specialized training.

We have a group of people who understand the ICS system, and can snap in and provide volunteer labour in DR situations.  If we start layering a bunch of qualifications on top of a basic understanding of how to operate within ICS (which is required for GES), we become more tail, less dog.

[Eclipse]

More nonsense - we can't pick up a radio without special training, but we can allow people to go into hazardous areas
with nothing more then an online test?

Makes my point even more.

We absolutely need a DR Doctrine and a set of DR SQTRs, and until then we should stay out of it.

[husker]

The turn of this discussion towards a DR SQTR is interesting.  I'm quite surprised by (at least the thus far) negativity towards a potential Disaster Relief curriculum and SQTR.  I've spent quite a bit of time talking to members around the country, and it seems to be a topic of quite a bit of interest in moving forward with such a thing.  If we look at the numbers that show our SAR missions decreasing, a DR curriculum has generated quite a bit of interest from members.

Is the basis for not wanting one the idea that an IC could not use no DR rated members in such tasks or missions?

[JeffDG]

More nonsense - we can't pick up a radio without special training, but we can allow people to go into hazardous areas
with nothing more then an online test?

Makes my point even more.

So, still not willing to accept that you're wrong, and the regulations disagree with you, eh?  (Oh and for the record I've not made "assertions", I've quoted actual, real, written regulations...you're the one making "assertions")

Yep, we need a SQTR for Water-Hander-Outer at a shelter...yessiree.

[Eclipse]

The basis is a bunch of people who can't be bothered to actually do proper training and maintain current
but want to show up when the water is rising and "help".

That and NHQ which is more focused on the uniform and grade system right now then actual mission-centric
curriculum and organizational updates.

[Eclipse]

Yep, we need a SQTR for Water-Hander-Outer at a shelter...yessiree.

If you view it simply as "handing out water", yo clearly don't understand the question.

[JeffDG]

Is the basis for not wanting one the idea that an IC could not use no DR rated members in such tasks or missions?

That would be part of my basis.  The regulation is clear (Bob's assertions to the contrary notwithstanding), that ICs can use any GES personnel for tasks for which we do not have specialized training.  If we were to provide some kind of specialized training, there would be a bunch of baracks lawyers who would claim that it covers all DR taskings, and suddenly, you would need to be a qualified Water-Hander-Outer in order to assist in a shelter.

The second reason is that every disaster is different.  The skillset for a generic DR SQTR would be massive, and would change after every event, and we'd constantly be training to fight the last battle.

On SAR, there are a discreet set of tools and skills that we use, and that are useful every time.  Tracking down an ELT doesn't measurably change from mission to mission.  Neither does how to conduct a line search.  Does our DR SQTR cover hurricanes?  Tornadoes?  Earthquakes?  Because each of these has a different skillset involved in responding. 

Do we make folks in MTWG learn about Hurricane Response, because if MTWG is impacted by a hurricane, it's going to be a lot bigger than we want to deal with.

[JeffDG]

Yep, we need a SQTR for Water-Hander-Outer at a shelter...yessiree.

If you view it simply as "handing out water", yo clearly don't understand the question.

But you're saying that if we're assisting with a shelter, we need people who have a SQTR that trains them in water distribution before we can use them for that tasking.  Lots more things happening, but that's one.

Again, your unfounded assertions notwithstanding, the regulations clearly permit ICs to use GES only people in these situations.  Rightly so.

[Eclipse]

Again, your assertions notwithstanding, the regulations clearly permit ICs to use GES only people in these situations.  Rightly so.

The the interpretations of the regulations needs to be changed, especially with people who purport to be ICs.

The regulations, as written, are intended to allow ICs to back-fill inconsequential areas of need, not make up
capabilities as they see fit.

Allow a GES-only member to help with finance?  OK, fine.

Wander into a DA to "help"?

Nope.  100% No.  And if "Wing/DOS, ICs, and NESA" believe that, they need a swift correction, because in the
conservatively environment of CAP operations, that was clearly never the intention.

[JeffDG]

Again, your assertions notwithstanding, the regulations clearly permit ICs to use GES only people in these situations.  Rightly so.

The the interpretations of the regulations needs to be changed, especially with people who purport to be ICs.

The regulations, as written, are intended to allow ICs to back-fill inconsequential areas of need, not make up
capabilities as they see fit.

Allow a GES-only member to help with finance?  OK, fine.

Wander into a DA to "help"?

Nope.  100% No.  And if "Wing/DOS, ICs, and NESA" believe that, they need a swift correction, because in the
conservatively environment of CAP operations, that was clearly never the intention.

Ummm...it's not an "interpretation" of the regulation.  It's the ACTUAL TEXT of the regulation as adopted by CAP.

Here, you seem to pussyfoot around what the reg ACTUALLY SAYS:

g. There are some duty positions that CAP does not have specific specialty qualifications identified. Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member to fill these gaps in order to meet the needs of the mission, but must use good judgment to select personnel who have the appropriate training and backgrounds to be able to successfully complete their assignment.

Since you seem to be labouring to find some actual justification for your position, here's the full reg for you:
http://capmembers.com/media/cms/R060_003_075A4369FBA8E.pdf

Let's break this down:

"There are some duty positions that CAP does not have specific specialty qualifications identified."  This acknowledges that CAP does not, nor will they ever, have everything defined with a curriculum and qualification process.  Not possible to do so.

"Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member to fill these gaps in order to meet the needs of the mission," So, ANY CAP IC can appoint ANY GES QUALIFIED MEMBER.  Is that ambiguous in any way, shape or form?

"but must use good judgment to select personnel who have the appropriate training and backgrounds to be able to successfully complete their assignment."  Pretty straightforward there too.  Look at what the person knows how to do, and let them do it.  If someone is an IT guy, I can let him set up a network at a mission base (no SQTR yet for "Mission IT Officer", so it falls under the exception).  If someone seems fairly healthy and is not a complete and utter moron, I can let them hand out water at a shelter that is being operated and where we're helping out.

I can't get you how can twist a clear and unambiguous line like "Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member" into some kind of prohibition, other than the fact that you shot your mouth off without actually checking the regs, and are now unwilling to admit that you were wrong.

[Eclipse]

g. There are some duty positions that CAP does not have specific specialty qualifications identified. Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member to fill these gaps in order to meet the needs of the mission, but must use good judgment to select personnel who have the appropriate training and backgrounds to be able to successfully complete their assignment.

Missed that while you were so busy telling me I was wrong.

The average "GES-only" member is not "appropriately trained for anything.

[JeffDG]

g. There are some duty positions that CAP does not have specific specialty qualifications identified. Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member to fill these gaps in order to meet the needs of the mission, but must use good judgment to select personnel who have the appropriate training and backgrounds to be able to successfully complete their assignment.

Missed that while you were so busy telling me I was wrong.

The average "GES-only" member is not "appropriately trained for anything.

Nope.  You keep saying that GES people are not authorized.  At least you've now acknowledged that there isn't a secret-squirrel version of 60-3 that doesn't include this.

Look at the examples I just cited.  I've cited many examples of "appropriate training and backgrounds".  You're still dead wrong.

[Eclipse]

Not trained = "not authorized".

I hope you don't get someone hurt proving how "right" you are.

[JeffDG]

Not trained = "not authorized".

I hope you don't get someone hurt proving how "right" you are.

Cite?

"Here, go hand out these water bottles."  You've now received training appropriate to the duties assigned.  Congratulations.

[JeffDG]

Just as a quick summary of all the "You can't ever do this" despite multiple citations to the actual text of the regs:

No SQTR, no play.

They were wrong, there is no channel for GES people to do anything, especially DR.

Please cite anything beyond "I was told."

60-1 & 60-3.

You can't cite a negative.  60-1 & 60-3 have your answers in simple form.

Nope.  This type of GES-only volunteer is specifically authorized and anticipated by CAPR 60-3.

100% wrong.  Note even a little.

Your turn to cite.

No. If there's no SQTR we don't do it, and certainly not
as GES.

The regs do NOT support it, despite the assertions.

I do not agree that GES allows for anything other then "learning", nor are ICs allowed to just make up additional duties
because they said so.

[Eclipse]

I stand by every one of those statements.

[Eclipse]

"Here, go hand out these water bottles."  You've now received training appropriate to the duties assigned.  Congratulations.

Have you ever actually been in a DA? 

There's more to the safety of the member and the people you are trying to help then handing them a bottle.

Not being a mission liability is a huge part of the training.

[JeffDG]

I stand by every one of those statements.

So, you believe the regs only apply when you don't disagree with them.

CAPR 60-3 2-3g is clear and unambiguous, and contradict what you say explicitly.  Feel free to operate as you wish, but please stop spreading myths to others.

[JeffDG]

"Here, go hand out these water bottles."  You've now received training appropriate to the duties assigned.  Congratulations.

Have you ever actually been in a DA? 

There's more to the safety of the member and the people you are trying to help then handing them a bottle.

Not being a mission liability is a huge part of the training.

Still just "some guy" saying that quotes from the regulations are incorrect.  You started the concept that folks should demand a cite and not believe "some guy", now you're the "some guy" who can't admit he is wrong by the letter of the regs.

[Eclipse]

CAPR 60-3 2-3g is clear and unambiguous, and contradict what you say explicitly.

Again, your interpretation of what an IC is allowed to do is incorrect.

[JeffDG]

CAPR 60-3 2-3g is clear and unambiguous, and contradict what you say explicitly.

Again, your interpretation of what an IC is allowed to do is incorrect.

Then, please, give me an alternative that does not involve a severe twisting of the language of the regulation.

The clear and unambiguous wording of the regulation (no interpretation necessary) says you're wrong.

You've said "No SQTR, No Play".  That's plainly false.  If it were true, then the entirely of 2-3g would be a nullity, as it specifically lays out the process for appointing people for tasks for which we have no "specialized training".  So, right there, you're flat out wrong.

The determination of "appropriate training and background" is left, explicitly, to the judgement of the IC in question.  Again, your "No SQTR no play" is flat out false.

[arajca]

"Here, go hand out these water bottles."  You've now received training appropriate to the duties assigned.  Congratulations.

Have you ever actually been in a DA? 

There's more to the safety of the member and the people you are trying to help then handing them a bottle.

Not being a mission liability is a huge part of the training.

I have been disaster areas and worked various functions in a disaster environment.

As for safety concerns, we have someone to deal with that. They're called the MISSION SAFETY OFFICER. They're job is to plan for safety concerns. If the specific operation cannot be done without and unacceptable level of risk to our people, our people should not be sent there.

I'm sorry, GTM does not prepare folks for working in a disaster area. The risks and challanges they may face in a disaster are significantly different than what they'd face in the woods.

[Eclipse]

I'm sorry, GTM does not prepare folks for working in a disaster area. The risks and challanges they may face in a disaster are significantly different than what they'd face in the woods.

I don't disagree, however it does assume a level of self-sufficiency and baseline equipment that is supposed to insure they
don't become a mission liability themselves.

[jeders]

"Here, go hand out these water bottles."  You've now received training appropriate to the duties assigned.  Congratulations.

Have you ever actually been in a DA? 

I can't speak for others, but I have. I handed out water to emergency workers from the back of a Red Cross truck. The only danger I faced is that we probably drank half the water and ended up having to pee about every 10 minutes. I've also done Red Cross damage assessment and home visits, none of which added any more danger than a normal drive down the street. When we wanted to go help with the search for a missing person who had been washed away in flood waters, we were flatly told no, it was too dangerous. Oh yeah, and all of this was done as a member of a CAP ground team. None of us had a CAP DR qual, but we had been through all of the Red Cross training needed; we were in essence GES members with outside training. As JeffDG has pointed out numerous times in his quotes of 60-3, the IC was in the right tasking us for those missions.

[JeffDG]

CAP group shows up at a shelter to help out.

Shelter Manager:  Welcome!  We could sure use the help!
Eclipse IC:  Glad to be of assistance.
SM:  Hey, we have a few cases of water, can you hand them out while we figure out what else we can have you do?
EIC:  Nope.  We don't have training on how to hand out water, therefore, we can't do that.
SM:  You've got to be ******* me.
EIC:  Nope.  Our regulations say I can let people do it, but I don't think it's a good idea, so nope, we can't do it.
SM:  Then you're taking up valuable space.  Leave.

[Eclipse]

and all of this was done as a member of a CAP ground team. None of us had a CAP DR qual, but we had been through all of the Red Cross training needed; we were in essence GES members with outside training.

No, you were a CAP Ground Team, assuming you had the proper qualifications.

[Eclipse]

CAP group shows up at a shelter to help out.

Shelter Manager:  Welcome!  We could sure use the help!
Eclipse IC:  Glad to be of assistance.
SM:  Hey, we have a few cases of water, can you hand them out while we figure out what else we can have you do?
EIC:  Nope.  We don't have training on how to hand out water, therefore, we can't do that.
SM:  You've got to be ******* me.
EIC:  Nope.  Our regulations say I can let people do it, but I don't think it's a good idea, so nope, we can't do it.
SM:  Then you're taking up valuable space.  Leave.

Yeah, OK.

[JeffDG]

CAP group shows up at a shelter to help out.

Shelter Manager:  Welcome!  We could sure use the help!
Eclipse IC:  Glad to be of assistance.
SM:  Hey, we have a few cases of water, can you hand them out while we figure out what else we can have you do?
EIC:  Nope.  We don't have training on how to hand out water, therefore, we can't do that.
SM:  You've got to be ******* me.
EIC:  Nope.  Our regulations say I can let people do it, but I don't think it's a good idea, so nope, we can't do it.
SM:  Then you're taking up valuable space.  Leave.

Yeah, OK.

Just summarizing your position a bit more succinctly.

No SQTR, No Play.  We have no SQTR for handing out water, so we cannot do it, in your world anyway. 

Now, were I the IC, I would do a quick safety rundown on lifting heavy water cases, and so "Go forth and assist"

[jeders]

and all of this was done as a member of a CAP ground team. None of us had a CAP DR qual, but we had been through all of the Red Cross training needed; we were in essence GES members with outside training.

...you were a CAP Ground Team, assuming you had the proper qualifications.

Is that not what I just said? Your assertion, however, is that without a CAP DR/DA SQTR, we're not allowed to do that stuff, which is flat out wrong. We did the work, not because we were a CAP ground team, but because we had been training with the Red Cross for months in order to help them out, regardless of our CAP quals.

[Eclipse]

and all of this was done as a member of a CAP ground team. None of us had a CAP DR qual, but we had been through all of the Red Cross training needed; we were in essence GES members with outside training.

...you were a CAP Ground Team, assuming you had the proper qualifications.

Is that not what I just said? Your assertion, however, is that without a CAP DR/DA SQTR, we're not allowed to do that stuff, which is flat out wrong. We did the work, not because we were a CAP ground team, but because we had been training with the Red Cross for months in order to help them out, regardless of our CAP quals.

My point is you were a "GES with Red Cross training" as you indicated.

You're a GT, and while I have issues with sending them out to do things no on the SQTR, not the same thing we're discussing here, and further even to JeffDG's quotes,
you had training explicitly for the task. You clearly weren't' "GES only".

[Eclipse]

For the record, and my last word on this in this thread, I have personally had these discussions as well
with Wing CC's, Wing DOS' (oh yeah, I was on of those), ICs, NESA people, and yes, even John D himself.

There is no consensus on this by anyone, with the response varying from "hmm, never really though about it" to
expedience vs. common sense, and then the far too typical "No time for backup, shoulder roll in the door..."

Yes, there are many who agree with JeffDGs interpretation of what an IC can assign, there are others who don't.

The reg says what it says, you can't argue that, however it's a single sentence inside a hugely subjective situation
and not one NHQ has chosen to deal with on any level other then looking at their feet and hoping it will go away.

There's no resolution here.

[JeffDG]

For the record, and my last word on this in this thread, I have personally had these discussions as well
with Wing CC's, Wing DOS' (oh yeah, I was on of those), ICs, NESA people, and yes, even John D himself.

There is no consensus on this by anyone, with the response varying from "hmm, never really though about it" to
expedience vs. common sense, and then the far too typical "No time for backup, shoulder roll in the door..."

Yes, there are many who agree with JeffDGs interpretation of what an IC can assign, there are others who don't.

The reg says what it says, you can't argue that, however it's a single sentence inside a hugely subjective situation
and not one NHQ has chosen to deal with on any level other then looking at their feet and hoping it will go away.

There's no resolution here.

Ahhh...the old "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy.  For someone who started off demanding that people not take the word of "some guy", you've certainly become "some guy" pretty quickly when the regulations don't support you.

[Storm Chaser]

It's amazing how hard it's to stay on topic here in CT. Oh well, at least we're still talking about ES and not uniforms.

While there's nothing wrong with using GES members for low treat, minimum training type tasks, I strongly support a DR curriculum and SQTR. Our primary ES role continues to change and our training and qualification process should change as well. I haven't read a single argument here that would convince me that additional DR training and qualification would be detrimental to our mission. I believe it would give us additional tools for when we're call to respond to a disaster. And I personally know of many experienced members in different wings who support the idea, although they don't necessarily make a lot of noise here in CT.

[fokkerfrenzy]

When I said I talked to a qualified individual for guidance, you said and I quote:  "Please cite something beyond "I was told"".

But when you do it it's ok, because?...   

Regardless, I think the matter is answered and closed.  I think we all understand (minus one) what the regs are saying, and can apply ourselves appropriately. 

[Storm Chaser]

My interpretation of CAPR 60-3, section 2-3.g is as follow:

• Need someone to write information on a board; I can assign a GES.
• Need someone to hand out bottles of water at a staging area; I can assign a GES.
• Need someone to handout blankets at a shelter; I can assign a GES.
  
• Need someone to pick up supplies; I can assign a GES with CAP DL if driving a COV.
• Need someone to do damage assessment; I wouldn't assign a GES. Due to lack of a DR/DA specialty, I would probably assign an experienced GT with some additional training in DA.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Yet no one raised the point that Jeders appears to think he was "being supervised by the Red Cross" while handling out those water bottles.

CAP regs state that "CAP personnel will be under control of CAP personnel."

Was Jeders here an IC, or was he as a "Ground Team" only?

Flyer

[FlyTiger77]

The reg says what it says, you can't argue that, however it's a single sentence inside a hugely subjective situation
and not one NHQ has chosen to deal with on any level other then looking at their feet and hoping it will go away.

There's no resolution here.

There is no resolution here unless you believe, as an alternative theory, that when NHQ published regulatory guidance stating:

There are some duty positions that CAP does not have specific specialty qualifications identified. Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member to fill these gaps in order to meet the needs of the mission, but must use good judgment to select personnel who have the appropriate training and backgrounds to be able to successfully complete their assignment.CAPR 60-3, 2-3(g)

what was actually meant was:

There are some duty positions that CAP does not have specific specialty qualifications identified. Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member to fill these gaps in order to meet the needs of the mission, but must use good judgment to select personnel who have the appropriate training and backgrounds to be able to successfully complete their assignment. CAPR 60-3, 2-3(g)


I realize it may be farfetched, but it could serve as an operable theory to use until something better comes along.

[jeders]

Yet no one raised the point that Jeders appears to think he was "being supervised by the Red Cross" while handling out those water bottles.

CAP regs state that "CAP personnel will be under control of CAP personnel."

Was Jeders here an IC, or was he as a "Ground Team" only?

Flyer

No one has raised it because I never said I was supervised by the Red Cross.

You're a GT, and while I have issues with sending them out to do things no on the SQTR, not the same thing we're discussing here, and further even to JeffDG's quotes,
you had training explicitly for the task. You clearly weren't' "GES only".

Exactly, I had training that allowed me to do the job, despite CAP not having a DR/DA SQTR. However, you said that if we have no SQTR, we don't do it, regardless of any outside training we may have. Jeff, and I think everyone else here, believes that a person that has outside training but is GES only in the eyes of CAP should be utilized for the tasks.

My interpretation of CAPR 60-3, section 2-3.g is as follow:


[goog stuff]

• Need someone to do damage assessment; I wouldn't assign a GES. Due to lack of a DR/DA specialty, I would probably assign an experienced GT with some additional training in DA.

This is the only item I take issue with, simply because the average GTM is no more able to do proper damage assessment than anyone else. I would use someone who has training with damage assessment, however, regardless of their cap training so long as they at least had GES. Now for other DR activities, I have no problem using GTs as the primary tool.

[SunDog]

The reg says what it says, you can't argue that, however it's a single sentence inside a hugely subjective situation
and not one NHQ has chosen to deal with on any level other then looking at their feet and hoping it will go away.

There's no resolution here.

There is no resolution here unless you believe, as an alternative theory, that when NHQ published regulatory guidance stating:

There are some duty positions that CAP does not have specific specialty qualifications identified. Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member to fill these gaps in order to meet the needs of the mission, but must use good judgment to select personnel who have the appropriate training and backgrounds to be able to successfully complete their assignment.CAPR 60-3, 2-3(g)

what was actually meant was:

There are some duty positions that CAP does not have specific specialty qualifications identified. Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member to fill these gaps in order to meet the needs of the mission, but must use good judgment to select personnel who have the appropriate training and backgrounds to be able to successfully complete their assignment. CAPR 60-3, 2-3(g)


I realize it may be farfetched, but it could serve as an operable theory to use until something better comes along.

Oh wow, that sounded kinda good. . .!

Havng caught grief from Eclipse for my cavalier attitude over SAS, and pointless negative-value processes in CAP, it's tempting to pile on. . .but

What I'm hearing is a long serving, committed, and frustrated guy who'd like to see some order in the organization.  We've drilled down to the bare metal in so many areas that our attention has to be spread so very thin now; we're semi-paralyzed by a blizzard of adminstrivia, low/no value depth in things from SUIs to confirming we've not counted the wing nuts on equipment we don't have. . .we need a lot less of this kind of junk, or at least we need it segregated. We exalt the trivial, and in doing so, we denigrate the essential.

Heresy here, but showng up for a real mission with the wong color T-shirt is trivial. Mention it after you find the wreckage, after debrief. Silly? Bet you a buck we have people here who would send a critical asset home over the T-shirt.

We have so much detailed "order" that we're overwhelmed with it. We move slow, we stumble over the import of one aspect of preparation over another, and we are not flexible.  This hurts us, it puts people off, they drift away. 

So people running a DR event want some flexibility, probably starving for it, actually; "Pass out the freakin' water already!" He/she doesn't need another snowflake in the avalanche of pointless cr*p they already have to deal with.   

But I bet Eclipse has seen all kinds of "winging it" that wasn't within the bounds of common sense or personal safety; and at the other extreme, I've seen all kinds of claptrap that added zero (or subtracted from) the execution of the mission. IMSAFE? No, genuis, I had a stroke last night, but I got the feeling in my leg back and decided to go fly. . .or, at the other extreme, did you really send the Cadet out to help install the antenna during a thunderstorm?

Somone will do something stupid. So boil down the SOP/training/SAS to essential, FOCUSED, clear, easily articulated, repeatable, meaningful, SHORT, procedures/processes.  How many thousands of pages are in CAP pubs/forms/pamphlets/web pages that apply to almost every member? It's way out of hand. . .

[Storm Chaser]

My interpretation of CAPR 60-3, section 2-3.g is as follow:

[goog stuff]

• Need someone to do damage assessment; I wouldn't assign a GES. Due to lack of a DR/DA specialty, I would probably assign an experienced GT with some additional training in DA.

This is the only item I take issue with, simply because the average GTM is no more able to do proper damage assessment than anyone else. I would use someone who has training with damage assessment, however, regardless of their cap training so long as they at least had GES. Now for other DR activities, I have no problem using GTs as the primary tool.

The problem is that without a SQTR, CAP has no effective way to track who's qualified and has which type of training. As an IC, I would of course assign personnel who are trained and qualified for the task at hand. Lacking any specialized qualification and having to use "good judgement", however, I would pick an experienced GT over GES-only personnel with no additional training for damage assessment or any other DR task. My rationale is that GTMs have training and experience in ES and would probably be able to perform these DA duties more effectively and safely, with some additional training, than personnel with little or no ES experience. You can disagree, but in this scenario I'm the IC and get to make the call.

[Spaceman3750]

The reg says what it says, you can't argue that, however it's a single sentence inside a hugely subjective situation
and not one NHQ has chosen to deal with on any level other then looking at their feet and hoping it will go away.

There's no resolution here.

There is no resolution here unless you believe, as an alternative theory, that when NHQ published regulatory guidance stating:

There are some duty positions that CAP does not have specific specialty qualifications identified. Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member to fill these gaps in order to meet the needs of the mission, but must use good judgment to select personnel who have the appropriate training and backgrounds to be able to successfully complete their assignment.CAPR 60-3, 2-3(g)

what was actually meant was:

There are some duty positions that CAP does not have specific specialty qualifications identified. Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member to fill these gaps in order to meet the needs of the mission, but must use good judgment to select personnel who have the appropriate training and backgrounds to be able to successfully complete their assignment. CAPR 60-3, 2-3(g)


I realize it may be farfetched, but it could serve as an operable theory to use until something better comes along.

Oh wow, that sounded kinda good. . .!

Havng caught grief from Eclipse for my cavalier attitude over SAS, and pointless negative-value processes in CAP, it's tempting to pile on. . .but

What I'm hearing is a long serving, committed, and frustrated guy who'd like to see some order in the organization.  We've drilled down to the bare metal in so many areas that our attention has to be spread so very thin now; we're semi-paralyzed by a blizzard of adminstrivia, low/no value depth in things from SUIs to confirming we've not counted the wing nuts on equipment we don't have. . .we need a lot less of this kind of junk, or at least we need it segregated. We exalt the trivial, and in doing so, we denigrate the essential.

Heresy here, but showng up for a real mission with the wong color T-shirt is trivial. Mention it after you find the wreckage, after debrief. Silly? Bet you a buck we have people here who would send a critical asset home over the T-shirt.

We have so much detailed "order" that we're overwhelmed with it. We move slow, we stumble over the import of one aspect of preparation over another, and we are not flexible.  This hurts us, it puts people off, they drift away. 

So people running a DR event want some flexibility, probably starving for it, actually; "Pass out the freakin' water already!" He/she doesn't need another snowflake in the avalanche of pointless cr*p they already have to deal with.   

But I bet Eclipse has seen all kinds of "winging it" that wasn't within the bounds of common sense or personal safety; and at the other extreme, I've seen all kinds of claptrap that added zero (or subtracted from) the execution of the mission. IMSAFE? No, genuis, I had a stroke last night, but I got the feeling in my leg back and decided to go fly. . .or, at the other extreme, did you really send the Cadet out to help install the antenna during a thunderstorm?

Somone will do something stupid. So boil down the SOP/training/SAS to essential, FOCUSED, clear, easily articulated, repeatable, meaningful, SHORT, procedures/processes.  How many thousands of pages are in CAP pubs/forms/pamphlets/web pages that apply to almost every member? It's way out of hand. . .

Probably the best post in the entire thread.

[jeders]

My interpretation of CAPR 60-3, section 2-3.g is as follow:

[goog stuff]

• Need someone to do damage assessment; I wouldn't assign a GES. Due to lack of a DR/DA specialty, I would probably assign an experienced GT with some additional training in DA.

This is the only item I take issue with, simply because the average GTM is no more able to do proper damage assessment than anyone else. I would use someone who has training with damage assessment, however, regardless of their cap training so long as they at least had GES. Now for other DR activities, I have no problem using GTs as the primary tool.

The problem is that without a SQTR, CAP has no effective way to track who's qualified and has which type of training. As an IC, I would of course assign personnel who are trained and qualified for the task at hand. Lacking any specialized qualification and having to use "good judgement", however, I would pick an experienced GT over GES-only personnel with no additional training for damage assessment or any other DR task. My rationale is that GTMs have training and experience in ES and would probably be able to perform these DA duties more effectively and safely, with some additional training, than personnel with little or no ES experience. You can disagree, but in this scenario I'm the IC and get to make the call.

I agree with you on all the DR stuff, just not on actual damage assessment. The reason being, at least from my Red Cross DA training and experience after floods, noting damage a few inches one way or the other is the difference between a homeowner getting assistance and not getting assistance. So, at least for anything where the Red Cross is involved, if you don't have people that are actually DA trained, then just don't do the tasking. Now if we're talking DA in terms of which roads/bridges are washed out etc., then I guess that's ok for CAP GTs to do.

That being said, I would think that in a major DR operation someone would be collecting information on additional relevant training that incoming resources have.

[JeffDG]

My interpretation of CAPR 60-3, section 2-3.g is as follow:

[goog stuff]

• Need someone to do damage assessment; I wouldn't assign a GES. Due to lack of a DR/DA specialty, I would probably assign an experienced GT with some additional training in DA.

This is the only item I take issue with, simply because the average GTM is no more able to do proper damage assessment than anyone else. I would use someone who has training with damage assessment, however, regardless of their cap training so long as they at least had GES. Now for other DR activities, I have no problem using GTs as the primary tool.

The problem is that without a SQTR, CAP has no effective way to track who's qualified and has which type of training. As an IC, I would of course assign personnel who are trained and qualified for the task at hand. Lacking any specialized qualification and having to use "good judgement", however, I would pick an experienced GT over GES-only personnel with no additional training for damage assessment or any other DR task. My rationale is that GTMs have training and experience in ES and would probably be able to perform these DA duties more effectively and safely, with some additional training, than personnel with little or no ES experience. You can disagree, but in this scenario I'm the IC and get to make the call.

I agree with you on all the DR stuff, just not on actual damage assessment. The reason being, at least from my Red Cross DA training and experience after floods, noting damage a few inches one way or the other is the difference between a homeowner getting assistance and not getting assistance. So, at least for anything where the Red Cross is involved, if you don't have people that are actually DA trained, then just don't do the tasking. Now if we're talking DA in terms of which roads/bridges are washed out etc., then I guess that's ok for CAP GTs to do.

That being said, I would think that in a major DR operation someone would be collecting information on additional relevant training that incoming resources have.

See, I'd rather send out a Civil Engineer with a GES (maybe with a GT to babysit him and make sure he doesn't kill himself)...that would be "appropriate training and background"

[Storm Chaser]

^ No disagreement there. But if you read my post carefully you'll notice I said "GES-only personnel with no additional training". A Civil Engineer has additional training.

The problem I have as an IC is that I have no way of tracking certain training outside of CAP. A DR SQTR at least provides a common framework for training and qualification. GES doesn't provide that.