Getting SQTR signed off.

[davidsinn]

I hate to say it, but heliodoc has a point here.  Put together an OPPLAN and request that Wing Staff find a MSO for you and send them down to the exercise.

I've put together two OPPLANS already. I was told I need to find an IC and and MSO. I was supplied with a list of both by wing. No MSO has been able/willing to come to my location. I've done my job.

My question is: Is the onsite MSO an NHQ requirement or is it a local requirement?

[Eclipse]

My question is: Is the onsite MSO an NHQ requirement or is it a local requirement?

Local.

There's no actual staff requirement beyond the IC.  Any staff position that needs to be done based on operational requirements becomes the IC's responsibility until someone is appointed.

Its an understandable request, but should not stand in the way of training when no one can be found who is willing or able to do the job.  I know in my wing there weren't that many MSO's to start with, and there are going to be less in about a week or so.

[heliodoc]

Why is that, Eclipse?

No one mentoring MSO's?  No one stepping up?  Wing on its laurels??

If this is simple sign offs that do not require moving 50 State logistics, as many SQTR tasks are, this is what makes CAP lame in training.

I can see NASAR but not CAP when it meets at least once a week

Davidsinn's problems ARE CAP's problems and so is your issue of no MSO's

No Mentorship.... No training = a lame CAP training program

HR1178 out to demonstrate this.....CAP's training program needs to be bolstered BEFORE it even can take on any more missions above aand beyond the ones illustrated here, that itself can not handle.

If I were a Congressmonkey....I would asssssk for a no____ no ___ assessment of CAP's true training
If what above is going on... I would say CAP would need to pay attention to its own SQTR problems BEFORE getting ANYMORE DHS HLS type missions

If Wings can not get it together at the local level.. Congress should not even consider CAP for anything UNTIL they clean their own training programs and STAND them UP!!!

[NC Hokie]

I've put together two OPPLANS already. I was told I need to find an IC and and MSO. I was supplied with a list of both by wing. No MSO has been able/willing to come to my location. I've done my job.

My advice (for whatever it is worth) would be to document the inability to find a MSO willing to assist you and prepare a report for your CC to forward on to your group and wing ES staff as well as the wing CC.  If there's no action within 30 days, send a copy of that report to the region ES staff and CC.

BTW, have you asked about having your squadron Safety Officer stand in for the MSO?

[RiverAux]

I agree that it would be ideal to have an MSO on hand, but the reality is that on most missions the MSO hangs around base, looks at vehicles and airplanes, and rarely gets out and actually supervises any real training where they may spot some safety violations. 

I agree with NC Hokies approach on this issue. 

[Larry Mangum]

I know every wing has its own requiremnts, but in my expereicne, if a unit wants to do training within the local area, that does not involve aircraft, a simple oplan being submitted to wing ES, outlining:

• What the Objective is, i.e. Ground team, UDF, ELT proficency, etc.
• Location
• Duration
• Required Resources
• ORM Assessment
• Instructor Qualifications

containng the above information is provided it should not be impossible to get a unfunded mission number.  Including a designated safety officer and contact information is icing on the cake.

[Eclipse]

No one mentoring MSO's?  No one stepping up?  Wing on its laurels?

How about the simple idea that no one right now is particularly interested in being an MSO?  Or those that are aren't particularly interested in driving the 200+ miles round trip to make sure no one walks into a prop.

No wing laurels, just the lack of interested people.  No amount of professional training, outreach, whatever, can change that easily, and since MSO is not an NHQ mandated staff position (important but not required), this should not be an issue when trying to do training.

About every third thread you complain about how busy you are and how your CAP time is focused on
your own flying.  Multiply that by the other wings and that's the issue.

[a2capt]

Simple task training and re-currency can be done without any intervention from above or mission numbers. While performing these during a mission is more desirable, it's not necessary.

What is needed is any wing or region supplements that spell out who and what qualifications your trainer needs to have, if any more than the National Regulations call for.

You can learn all that stuff, and then be signed off without a mission. You do need two mission participations (on most) and it just so happens that accomplishing some of that during them is most certainly desirable, but it's certainly not possible to learn it all and be evaluated during said mission participations nor is it probably the most effective teaching environment.

That said, you do find, sadly, that there are a fair amount of folks in the position of power to wield the pen like sword and tell you they won't do it unless, or because, or whatever - and without opening a huge Pandoras Box, I will say that some of these folks are the *BEST* recruiters that CAP has for the cadet program.

What do I mean by that?

Folks join CAP for ES and get sick and tired of dealing with the pure crap thrown at them and either bail out of the program or find other areas of it to give their services and time to. Cadets, Aerospace, etc - and find a lot more welcoming hands there awaiting.

[KyCAP]

Local.

Our CAP-USAF LO would probably stop the training of anything more than 1 plane or 1 ground team without a Safety Officer on-site..  So, it has been my picture of running about 15 SAREXs as the IC that while it's not a NHQ "requirement" that is a CAP-USAF "consideration".

[Eclipse]

Local.

Our CAP-USAF LO would probably stop the training of anything more than 1 plane or 1 ground team without a Safety Officer on-site..  So, it has been my picture of running about 15 SAREXs as the IC that while it's not a NHQ "requirement" that is a CAP-USAF "consideration".

I'll have to leave that to your local understanding of the situation, however that's not the case one click West.

We take Safety seriously, and insure the duties are covered regardless, but you don't grind operations to a halt simply because of the lack of any respective specialty or staffer - the operational responsibility shifts to the IC, and its up to him to make sure it gets done.

Every plan should seek out an MSO by design, but lack of one should not be a show-, or plan-, stopper or bottleneck.  In Wings where that is the case...I'd have to...((*gack*))...agr...((*urp*))ee...with...((*ugh*))...Helio in that it'd be the Wing's responsibility to insure an MSO is there.

You can't have it both ways if you're causing the bottleneck.

[KyCAP]

Agreed. The Wing should support the MSO functin.  Speaking of...

Isn't ICS 400 required for MSO by 9/30 of this month or "caput".

[Eclipse]

Agreed. The Wing should support the MSO functin.  Speaking of...

Isn't ICS 400 required for MSO by 9/30 of this month or "caput".

Yes, thus my comment about having "less" in about a week.

[Short Field]

I just reviewed the SQTR for the MSO and most of the tasks were in support of the IC.  If a MSO wasn't there, the IC just accomplished the functions.  I have rarely had a MSO sign in on a SAR or SAREX.  With only a few exceptions, it was just someone getting renewed who hung around the minimum amount of time before leaving.

[KyCAP]

Just goes to show it's done differently... really.. in our wing if there wasn't an MSO or a person to "be" the MSO (supplied by someone) there would be no SAREX or a big poo pile.   Safety is the culture.

[Eclipse]

I just reviewed the SQTR for the MSO and most of the tasks were in support of the IC.

Yep, I found out the other day that I am ICS 400 away from being an MSO myself, without even trying.
So I'll likely take care of it so that I can help when needed, but it wasn't something I was doing on purpose.

[SarMaster]

Why is it so hard to get a mission number?  What wing are you in?  We can get a mission number in a few days with a simple 1 page request.

Monthly mission numbers are for PILOT and AIRCREW proficiency flights....ONLY...  The crew has to fly a profile per the 60-1.  Proficiency is not an initial certification...  Many times a prof. flight (1 hour ) are used for initial qualls, or multiple exercise participation credit and kicked back.  You need to have oversight of an IC.. ect for mission credit.... not to mention a REAL ES Mission number.

With the new regs all 'evaluators' have to be approved by wing HQ...  That is all well and good. Except there is still a  missing link...   Scenario.....lets say that a dishonest CAP member ( I know we don't have any of those) got a evaluators CAP ID ....he could then go into ops quals  and use the evaluators ID for a task sign off , or for mission participation...its a legal evaluators CAPID on the SQTR...so who is going to question it?

BIG PROBLEM NATIONWIDE.... Evaluators have to report an AAR with the roster of who was signed off, that roster needs to be referenced during validations.....or the system has a giant hole in it.


Any Comments?

[Short Field]

Mission numbers for unfunded missions are too simple to do.  When I was the Wing ESO, all I needed to do was keep a list of the mission numbers I used for unfunded missions.  The list never went any where so I think it was just to make sure I didn't use the same number twice.  All it took for a mission number was a phone call or email.  Funded missions are suppose to arrive at the Region LO at least 30 days prior to the event.