ES Specialty Qualifications

[Eclipse]

LAME.

GTMs are already well trained over that nonsense.

CERT is designed and intended primarily for people to self-care and assist their neighbors, not as a deployable
for of already trained members.

Do FDs and LEAs take their already trained people and downgrade them to "CERT"?

Of course not.

[Storm Chaser]

At the bottom yes, but my line items only show:

Ground Team Member Level 3 - Exercise Participation
Exercise Participation-Ground Team Member #2

I understand and I'm not disagreeing. Only one exercise participation is required for renewals and there's only one entry on the Ops Quals SQTR. My comments regarding the signature blocks on the printed SQTR, as I mentioned before, were in response to another post.

[Storm Chaser]

LAME.

GTMs are already well trained over that nonsense.

CERT is designed and intended primarily for people to self-care and assist their neighbors, not as a deployable
for of already trained members.

Do FDs and LEAs take their already trained people and downgrade them to "CERT"?

Of course not.

GTMs are trained in GSAR, not DR ops. I think the intent on making CERT a CAP qual was (and I could be wrong) to fill that DR gap; to enable CAP to deploy 3-member CERTs to respond to disasters (hurricane, floods, tornados, etc.) while using an already established training program. Or, maybe the intent was to leverage those members who have already received CERT training. Either way, it's obvious that this didn't quite work as intended; at least not in most wings (if any).

I hear that NHQ has been working on a DR curriculum either as a separate specialty or as part of the GTM SQTR. There's also a revision to CAPR 60-3 in the works. Maybe this will be addressed soon. But until it is, each wing will have to decide how to best utilize the resources and training available to meet their needs. That includes the use of CERT teams, as that's permitted by current regulations.

[Eclipse]

CERT is not the answer to DR for CAP - we far exceed that training and proficiency.

CERT is basically "pick up stuff and move it", " report fires" and don't be a liability yourself.

CAP can do that with GTMs, a lot better as-is, and expecting a GTM to sit through another week's
worth of classes that basically rehash the GTM and other ES training isn't reasonable.  If the
differentials can be wrapped into GTM as a few more tasks, then whatever.

If people want to be on a CERT, they should just join their local CERT.

We'd be better off spending the time working on the top-down relationships at the 3/4 letter agency
level as well as getting local CC's to contact local EMAs then reinventing the wheel.

With that said, yes, the curriculum needs to be redone - we've been hearing about this for several
years.  The ES curriculum is the new 39-1.

[Alaric]

CERT is not the answer to DR for CAP - we far exceed that training and proficiency.

CERT is basically "pick up stuff and move it", " report fires" and don't be a liability yourself.

CAP can do that with GTMs, a lot better as-is, and expecting a GTM to sit through another week's
worth of classes that basically rehash the GTM and other ES training isn't reasonable.  If the
differentials can be wrapped into GTM as a few more tasks, then whatever.

If people want to be on a CERT, they should just join their local CERT.

We'd be better off spending the time working on the top-down relationships at the 3/4 letter agency
level as well as getting local CC's to contact local EMAs then reinventing the wheel.

With that said, yes, the curriculum needs to be redone - we've been hearing about this for several
years.  The ES curriculum is the new 39-1.

You do CERT a disservice, they may be "pick up and move it" where you are, but I have been a member of CERT teams in Baldwin County, AL; New Milford, CT, and Naperville, IL and at various times we have done a variety of activities including  POD, Sandbag filling, food distribution, light search (generally a line search), shelter staffing traffic control and crowd control.  So whereas you may think that our GTMs are at a much higher level than CERT, the varying emergency management agencies seem to disagree.  I would argue that CERT teams are much more useful in a disaster scenario and our ground teams much better in a SAR scenario.   Regardless of which you believe members of CERT are dedicated community volunteers and should not be derided.  YMMV

[Storm Chaser]

CERT is not the answer to DR for CAP - we far exceed that training and proficiency.

CERT is basically "pick up stuff and move it", " report fires" and don't be a liability yourself.

CAP can do that with GTMs, a lot better as-is, and expecting a GTM to sit through another week's
worth of classes that basically rehash the GTM and other ES training isn't reasonable.  If the
differentials can be wrapped into GTM as a few more tasks, then whatever.

If people want to be on a CERT, they should just join their local CERT.

We'd be better off spending the time working on the top-down relationships at the 3/4 letter agency
level as well as getting local CC's to contact local EMAs then reinventing the wheel.

With that said, yes, the curriculum needs to be redone - we've been hearing about this for several
years.  The ES curriculum is the new 39-1.

Have you submitted a proposal to NHQ on how to address this?

[Eclipse]

^ Yeah, I'll get right on that proposal.  Any suggestions on the font?

Alaric, don't get bunched - no one said CERT wasn't useful or important, but being "dedicated" at something
doesn't in and of itself make that thing "hard".

Sandbags, water-passing, PODS - a clipboard and a queue line, critical in an emergency, but hardly requiring
more then a cursory orientation.

[Alaric]

^ Yeah, I'll get right on that proposal.  Any suggestions on the font?

Alaric, don't get bunched - no one said CERT wasn't useful or important, but being "dedicated" at something
doesn't in and of itself make that thing "hard".

Sandbags, water-passing, PODS - a clipboard and a queue line, critical in an emergency, but hardly requiring
more then a cursory orientation.

Your derision is noted, by that measure MSA shouldn't be a qual either as keeping a log and escorting a dignitary "hardly requires more than a cursory orientation"  I also note that as usual you decided to cherry pick, as you did not mention in your brush off crowd or traffic control, or food distribution.

[Eclipse]

Your derision is noted, by that measure MSA shouldn't be a qual either as keeping a log and escorting a dignitary "hardly requires more than a cursory orientation"  I also note that as usual you decided to cherry pick, as you did not mention in your brush off crowd or traffic control, or food distribution.

I don't think MSA >should< be a qual.  It was a "made up thing" after 911 to try and get people who otherwise
couldn't be bothered up to that point to be involved in the mission base.

CAP doesn't do crowd "control", they observe and report, nor should they be doing "traffic control" - a lot of CCs feel, as I do, that these are
areas CAP should not be involved in, despite the allowances in the regs, and the seemingly endless number of air shows where
members skirt the regs every year doing "crowd control" and security.  How do you "control" someone yo have no authority over?
We've pointed out for years that when doing crash site surveillance, anyone so inclined could run right past a CAP person and
flip them off, and all the CAP guy can do is "report".

Unskilled members of the general public can park cars and watch an audience line, it doesn't need someone in a CAP uniform.

[Storm Chaser]

^ Yeah, I'll get right on that proposal.  Any suggestions on the font?

So you're not really interested in improving the program, just complaining about?

I get it. Fixing and improving things is much harder than criticizing them and those who are actually doing something about it.

[Eclipse]

^ Yeah, I'll get right on that proposal.  Any suggestions on the font?

So you're not interested in improving the program, just complaining about?

I get it. Fixing and improving things is much harder than criticizing them.

Yeah, OK.

I'll just pile the breath I've wasted talking directly to the national ops staffers over here any time you're ready to look at it.

Not interested, prefer things invented there.

Also, why would I "suggest" something that I think is a bad idea.  GTMS are already over-prepared to function as a CERT,
however I've already said several times that I don't think CAP should try and be in the "CERT" business.  DO we need a DR
doctrine?  Yes.  Not CERT.

Not that it makes any difference, but it was just suggested, publicly, above.  Guaranteed it was read by
at least 10 people in a position to implement it.

Done.

[Storm Chaser]

^ Didn't say that at all. However, unless you're willing to contribute to the solution, not just complain about it, there's not much to discuss.

Comment included in duplicate post below.

[Alaric]

Not that it makes any difference, but it was just suggested, publicly, above.  Guaranteed it was read by
at least 10 people in a position to implement it.

Done.

That's a cop out Eclipse, there's a formal process, posting something on a board isn't it.  Any more than posting about uniforms on CT is the way to get change implemented.

[Eclipse]

^ Didn't say that at all. However, unless you're willing to contribute to the solution, not just complain about it, there's not much to discuss.

BTDT deaf ears.

At some point even the wall gets annoyed.

[Storm Chaser]

^ Yeah, I'll get right on that proposal.  Any suggestions on the font?

So you're not interested in improving the program, just complaining about?

I get it. Fixing and improving things is much harder than criticizing them.

Yeah, OK.

I'll just pile the breath I've wasted talking directly to the national ops staffers over here any time you're ready to look at it.

Not interested, prefer things invented there.

Didn't say that at all. However, unless you're willing to contribute to the solution, not just complain about it, there's not much to discuss.

Also, why would I "suggest" something that I think is a bad idea.  GTMS are already over-prepared to function as a CERT,
however I've already said several times that I don't think CAP should try and be in the "CERT" business.  DO we need a DR
doctrine?  Yes.  Not CERT.

Again, no one said it had to be CERT. I agree with some/many or your comments. But sometimes it feels that you're not open to dialog because your opinions are better than everyone else's. There's more than one way to skin a cat, you know.

Not that it makes any difference, but it was just suggested, publicly, above.  Guaranteed it was read by at least 10 people in a position to implement it.

Done.

Again, if you're referring to your posts in CAP Talk, that's hardly the appropriate forum. From your own words, a formal proposal was never submitted through the appropriate channels. If you've had informal conversations about this, I don't think that would qualify either although it's certainly a start.

[JeffDG]

^ Yeah, I'll get right on that proposal.  Any suggestions on the font?

Alaric, don't get bunched - no one said CERT wasn't useful or important, but being "dedicated" at something
doesn't in and of itself make that thing "hard".

Sandbags, water-passing, PODS - a clipboard and a queue line, critical in an emergency, but hardly requiring
more then a cursory orientation.

Yet you have insisted, multiple times, that because CAP doesn't have a "national standard training program" for these items, we're not qualified to assist with these.

Which is it?  Is it so easy that anyone with a 5 minute orientation can do it?  Or is it such a minefield of potential liability that CAP should stay 500 miles away from any such activity until we develop a fully-developed training program for it?

You can't suck and blow at the same time, hard as you try.

[JeffDG]

^ Yeah, I'll get right on that proposal.  Any suggestions on the font?

So you're not really interested in improving the program, just complaining about?

I get it. Fixing and improving things is much harder than criticizing them and those who are actually doing something about it.

Yeah...pretty much.  "The CAP can't do anything right, and shouldn't even try." mantra gets a bit tiresome to hear after a while.

[Eclipse]

^ Yeah, I'll get right on that proposal.  Any suggestions on the font?

Alaric, don't get bunched - no one said CERT wasn't useful or important, but being "dedicated" at something
doesn't in and of itself make that thing "hard".

Sandbags, water-passing, PODS - a clipboard and a queue line, critical in an emergency, but hardly requiring
more then a cursory orientation.

Yet you have insisted, multiple times, that because CAP doesn't have a "national standard training program" for these items, we're not qualified to assist with these.

Which is it?  Is it so easy that anyone with a 5 minute orientation can do it?  Or is it such a minefield of potential liability that CAP should stay 500 miles away from any such activity until we develop a fully-developed training program for it?

You can't suck and blow at the same time, hard as you try.

Actually it's both, especially when you're talking about cadets.  That's what a "doctrine" >is< vs, this piecemeal nonsense
we have today.  You're trained to do "x" and you only do "x" and the people who call you know what the "x" is,
and barring Katrina or Sandy where you a single resource on a mountain, you're not even asked about "y". CAP
members are so desperate to get into the game that they just want the phone to ring and don't care who is calling or what for.

CAP is a national, professionalized ES response organization, not vigilantes that run out the door with
whacker lights at the first crack of thunder.

[Eclipse]

^ Yeah, I'll get right on that proposal.  Any suggestions on the font?

So you're not really interested in improving the program, just complaining about?

I get it. Fixing and improving things is much harder than criticizing them and those who are actually doing something about it.

Yeah...pretty much.  "The CAP can't do anything right, and shouldn't even try." mantra gets a bit tiresome to hear after a while.

That's a huge steaming pile.

I have literally had these direct, written and phone conversations all the way up the OPS chain, including CAP-USAF people,
wing CCs, NESA staffers, the Nat DO, the works.  All the people who can make whatever they >want< to happen, happen.

Deaf ears, apathy, not invented here.

Don't like my argument? So be it, difference of opinion, but lay this "what have you done about it stuff" somewhere it applies.
I've tried to do plenty.  No one cared, or was interested.  The apathy was palpable, in some cases half the conversation
was explaining why CAP should care to start with.

The simple fact that we've been having these same conversations both here and in the wet world for the last 10 years is proof of that.
The decade-long "re-work" of the ES curriculum is more proof.  In an organization where it takes years to correct TYPOS, don't hold your breath
on anything else.

The recent ARC MOU is even more - says nothing, does nothing by get a press release and "encourage contact".

Status quo.

[JeffDG]

I get it.  You think everything must be mandated by NHQ.  As such, it's a huge deal to get the NHQ folks to change things.

On the other hand, there are people that think that local innovation is a good thing.  As such, it's much easier to test out new doctrine and skills with much fewer 'crats getting in the way, and at far less risk when things don't go perfectly.  Different subordinate organizations can take different approaches to problems, and as a result, come up with different solutions that can be compared and contrasted.

You've admitted your way doesn't work, yet you insist that it's the only way.  Like I said, gets tiresome after a while.