Incentives for Mission Base

[Short Field]

I have been told that the only people who work mission base positions are those either afraid to fly or those too old to continue flying.  That is BS IMHO.  However, how do you attract more people to train, get really qualified, and participate on a regular basis in the senior Mission Base positions?  Specifically I am looking at incentives to get people to pass up flying as a mission pilot or observer on a semi-regular basis to get qualified and experienced as AOBD, PSC, OSC, and IC.  The CUL, LSC, FASC, and other "skilled" staff positions are included as well. 

What do you think? 

[Eclipse]

Well, you could start by remembering GBD.

You have to start from day one that CAP membership requires more commitment than just what "you find fun" - some days you're a player, some days you're a ref.  If you don't switch once in a while, soon no one will want to play.

Some of my best experiences in CAP were as GBD and MRO, but it was because of team synergy and spirit, with a bunch of other highly trained, efficient "management types" who kicked ass working together.

If you turn back the clock 5 years, our EOC's were huge CF's with arguing, yelling and chaos. 

Show a member a finely tuned machine, and they will want to be part of it, show them chaos, and many will just steer clear.

[SDF_Specialist]

I think the first problem to address is motivating the members to come out on their weekends, and train for ES. It's hard enough to get some (not all) to even get their 116 & 117. How to motivate?

[isuhawkeye]

At its core this is a recruitment issue.  If CAP's only recruitment tool is free flying then the motivating factor for the membership will be flying, and no one will have any incentive to move up. 

It starts from day 1.  Providing motivation and ideals based around the total CAP force

[Pylon]

I hate to bring it up.  (Somebody can smite me, smack me, and/or shun me for this one)

But what motivates a lot of people?  Yes, bling.

The ground side has their badges for GTM's, GTL's and GBD's.  The aircrew side has their wings for MO and MP's.   The ES mission base and support staff have?  Nothing.  Until, at least, you become a full fledged IC at least.

Just an observation.

[SDF_Specialist]

I hate to bring it up.  (Somebody can smite me, smack me, and/or shun me for this one)

But what motivates a lot of people?  Yes, bling.

The ground side has their badges for GTM's, GTL's and GBD's.  The aircrew side has their wings for MO and MP's.   The ES mission base and support staff have?  Nothing.  Until, at least, you become a full fledged IC at least.

Just an observation.

Well unfortuantely, you're right. Some members don't want to do things unless they know they can secure bling. How do we get them out of that frame of mind?

[davedove]

I hate to bring it up.  (Somebody can smite me, smack me, and/or shun me for this one)

But what motivates a lot of people?  Yes, bling.

The ground side has their badges for GTM's, GTL's and GBD's.  The aircrew side has their wings for MO and MP's.   The ES mission base and support staff have?  Nothing.  Until, at least, you become a full fledged IC at least.

Just an observation.

Well unfortuantely, you're right. Some members don't want to do things unless they know they can secure bling. How do we get them out of that frame of mind?

I can agree with that, but there is also the fairness issue.  Using that line of thought, neither aircrew nor ground teams should have their bling either.  If one gets it, I see no reason why others shouldn't as well.

Now I can also see an argument about too much bling, but bling is the only compensation we have in CAP.

[DogCollar]

I have been told that the only people who work mission base positions are those either afraid to fly or those too old to continue flying.  That is BS IMHO. 

I think the person(s) who say such things should be referred directly to the Mission Chaplain...do not pass go...do not collect air crew...go directly to the Chaplain

But seriously...mission base is time spent in boredom with intermittent moments of complete madness.  You learn things about yourself, and what kind of leader you are, when you can handle the moments of chaos and still do your job and assist others to do theirs!

[LittleIronPilot]

I think, as already mentioned, this has to do with expectations of new members.

For too long CAP has used flying as the hook for Officers. In both squadrons I have been in, there were those that thought I was nuts to want to get into the ground team stuff as well as mission base. Especially since I am a pilot.

However I own my own aircraft, and I spend my discretionary funds on keeping THAT flying, not CAP birds. Not to mention the paperwork and regulations surrounding MP are just too much for me, again considering I can hope in my own aircraft and fly at any time.

Thus I will most likely not go any higher than MS on the flying side, but I will get my GTL on the ground side and work on GBD and AOBD. I am already MRO and will work on some other stuff.

I want to be useful to the mission, not just a position. If a real alert goes out and the bird is full but they really need GTM's I would feel like an arse not being able to contribute because I was selfish enough to not get qualified in other areas that I could be useful in.

Just my .00002

[capchiro]

As much as I hate to admit it, I think there does need to be some bling for mission staff.  Mission staff work can be long hours, sometimes much longer than air or ground crew hours, and sometimes it gets awfully hectic.  Plus, do you ever see the mission staff (other than PAO) on the news or in photos when there is a find??  Mission staff is probably one of the hardest working, worst (how can that be in a non-paid group) paid positions in CAP.  Although PAO is a close second.. 

[CAPSGT]

This is a topic that I have been contemplating for quite some time.  The situation I find myself in right now is a double edged sword.  As the only qualified IC in the group (and the only qualified one for most staff positions in the group), I am constantly leaned on to pull staff duty for group SAREXes.

I had been fighting the constant pull to do mission staff, as my primary responsibility until recently was getting my squadron's ground team trained, which required me to go with them as a GTL.  When I got the group commander to agree that we needed more qualified mission staff folks in the group, he urged people at a recent commander's call to train for mission staff instead of staying at GTL or MO/MP.  The response he got from even his own ops officer was "why would I want to do that and be stuck at base all the time?"

So the problem I see is that we need more mission staff to spread the staff workload out, but because mission staff is spread so thin, nobody wants to do it.  For me, working towards IC was something I decided to do when I started working on GTM as a cadet.  My motivation when it comes to ES is that I want to make myself as useful as possible when it comes to missions.  I could be much more helpful to the accomplishment of the mission as a FASC or FLS than as a GTL or MO if there are enough GTLs and MOs to go around.  They're not necessarily as fun, but ES is first and foremost about helping others in need.

[lordmonar]

Well unfortuantely, you're right. Some members don't want to do things unless they know they can secure bling. How do we get them out of that frame of mind?

You don't...you use that frame of mind to get the mission done.  Our jobs as leaders is to motivate people to get the mission done....not change their mind sets.

It is what I have been saying about bling all alone.

[Psicorp]

Well, I blame part of that on the changes to the ES qualification requirements, at least for me.  Now Mission Staff Assistant (MSA) is required for base staff positions (but not CUL for some reason).  It's taken me a while to find someone who was MSA qualified in the Wing, but now I am too so that barrier is removed and I can start teaching that to others (including Cadets).

Being a Mission Observer, I was looking forward to learning the Air Operations Branch Director job.  Can't do that now though, someone decided that you have to have the Mission Pilot qualification first in order to be AOBD.  I'm not a pilot.   Without being an AOBD, you can't be an Operations Section Chief or a Planning Section Chief.  What that means now is that only pilots can be Incident Commanders.  Nice.   

[Pylon]

Being a Mission Observer, I was looking forward to learning the Air Operations Branch Director job.  Can't do that now though, someone decided that you have to have the Mission Pilot qualification first in order to be AOBD.  I'm not a pilot.   Without being an AOBD, you can't be an Operations Section Chief or a Planning Section Chief.  What that means now is that only pilots can be Incident Commanders.  Nice.   

You don't need to be an MP to be AOBD.  You need to be either an MO or MP.

See item 2 on the AOBD SQTR. And you need not be current in the rating; just have earned one of them in the past.

[Psicorp]

Being a Mission Observer, I was looking forward to learning the Air Operations Branch Director job.  Can't do that now though, someone decided that you have to have the Mission Pilot qualification first in order to be AOBD.  I'm not a pilot.   Without being an AOBD, you can't be an Operations Section Chief or a Planning Section Chief.  What that means now is that only pilots can be Incident Commanders.  Nice.   

You don't need to be an MP to be AOBD.  You need to be either an MO or MP.

See item 2 on the AOBD SQTR. And you need not be current in the rating; just have earned one of them in the past.

Sir, the SQTR in eServices under Ops Qual / ES lists both MO and MP as prerequisites and doesn't say "or". 

[davidsinn]

Yes it does in a round about way:


Air Operations Branch Director - Prerequisites
Must Complete 1 Task(s)    MP - SAR/DR Mission Pilot   
                                                MO - Mission Observer

The must complete means you only need to have one.

[Pylon]

Sir, the SQTR in eServices under Ops Qual / ES lists both MO and MP as prerequisites and doesn't say "or". 

And in the PDF SQTR it's even more clear with this statement (my emphasis added) "Qualified SAR/DR Mission Pilot or Mission Observer (need not be current)"

However, the most important doucment is the regulation.  CAPR 60-3, 2-3, L. with my emphasis added:

l. Air Operations Branch Director (AOBD).
1) Trainee Prerequisites. Satisfy the following to begin training for AOBD:
a) At least 18 years of age.
b) Qualified SAR/DR Mission Pilot or Mission Observer (need not be current).
c) Qualified GES.

[CAPSGT]

e-services is a bit weird on the MP or MO requirment for AOBD as well as the AOBD or GBD requirement for PSC.  That's just a matter of how the programmers wrote the computerized version to accept tasks from various parts of the ops quals database.

As Mike said, the most important thing is what the actual regulation says.

[RiverAux]

People get into ES partly because of the "fun" aspects of it, and lets face it, working at mission base is not always fun and is rarely, if ever, exciting. 

I think what it takes is a sincere effort on the part of the Wing/Group to specifically recruit smart people and then provide them the opportunity to get trained. 

While the new NIMS training is very good and requiring it is the right thing to do (even if we didn't go as far as we should) for mission staff, it is just going to make it harder to bring people in. 

[isuhawkeye]

I have to respectfully disagree. even though I enjoyed aircrew and ground team experiences nothing was more exciting than coordinating dozens of agencies, hundreds of volunteers, getting thanked for my effort by 2 star general, shaking the govenors hand and then getting in on a press conference.  now that was fun

[RiverAux]

I said "not always fun", not "never fun". 

[Short Field]

While the new NIMS training is very good and requiring it is the right thing to do (even if we didn't go as far as we should) for mission staff, it is just going to make it harder to bring people in. 

I predict a large number of people losing their ES qualifications when the new NIMS training requirements take effect 31 Dec 08.  Most of the training is on-line but ICS 300 & 400 are multi-day in-class requirements.

[RiverAux]

The CG Aux lost a lot of people who gave up their requirements rather than do 100/700 and 200/800 and I expect to see the same thing in CAP.  People just don't like to be told that they have to do more stuff to stay qualified in something they've been doing for years, no matter that it isn't that much of a burden.  Figure 10% loss in aircrew/gt members and probably higher in base staff. 

[Larry Mangum]

Read much higher then 10%.  In WAWG, we are lucky enough to have two members who are qualified to teach all the ICS classes. Should be easy to get people qualified then, right? Nope, the state requires a minimum of 12 people in attendance before it will recognize the class and issue certificates for the ICS 300 and ICS 400 courses and we cannot get people to attend, and the classes are being offered on weekends with lodging and food provided for at a cost of 25 bucks for the entire weekend.   

[Short Field]

I fully agree there are rewards for working Mission Base.  However, what specific things can we do to motivate people to get qualified for and work at Mission Base.  As mentioned, we tend to run real short of people in some of the higher skill (or tedious) jobs.

I have heard various proposals in the past, but they were all "negative" actions.  Sort of a "if you don't do this, you will lose that".  For example, I heard one wing required all MPs to become qualified AOBDs after their first five missions as a MP or they could not fly again.  They also required periodic participation as a AOBD after that.  

What I really want to find are positive motivators.  One idea is that if you work Mission Base, you have priority on flying (or leading the ground team) on the next SAREX or SAR.   I like that type of approach, but it depends on having a surplus of people to conduct the flying and ground mission.  

Comments?

[RiverAux]

I wouldn't even bother trying to have CAP ICS 300/400 classes for the next year or two.  Every little VFD in the country is, or is going to be having them so there should be plenty of opportunities. 

The added difficulty in getting base staff is, lets face it, you need a fairly high quality person used to working very well under preassure, and they can be hard to find.  The actual SQTR tasks for most of them aren't that hard, but actually being able to function well in these positions just isn't for everybody.  Not sure what to do about it though other than targeting those people who would do a good job and intensively recruiting them to do the job.

[DNall]

I hate to bring it up.  (Somebody can smite me, smack me, and/or shun me for this one)

But what motivates a lot of people?  Yes, bling.

The ground side has their badges for GTM's, GTL's and GBD's.  The aircrew side has their wings for MO and MP's.   The ES mission base and support staff have?  Nothing.  Until, at least, you become a full fledged IC at least.

Just an observation.

That's fine, except it causes them to do just enough to secure the bling, and then stop.

[arajca]

I hate to bring it up.  (Somebody can smite me, smack me, and/or shun me for this one)

But what motivates a lot of people?  Yes, bling.

The ground side has their badges for GTM's, GTL's and GBD's.  The aircrew side has their wings for MO and MP's.   The ES mission base and support staff have?  Nothing.  Until, at least, you become a full fledged IC at least.

Just an observation.

That's fine, except it causes them to do just enough to secure the bling, and then stop.

And that differs from other es folks how exactly?

[isuhawkeye]

I wouldn't even bother trying to have CAP ICS 300/400 classes for the next year or two.  Every little VFD in the country is, or is going to be having them so there should be plenty of opportunities.

You hit the nail on the head.  ICS 300 and 400 should be taught in a multi agency multi discipline environment.  With so many volunteer agencies taking these classes right now you should not have a problem finding one. 

[arajca]

About a year ago, I proposed - both here and through channels - an ES qualification badge, similar in design to the GT badge. This would have had three levels (now, four initially, including IC) and covered those qualifications that do not have badges already. One requirement I included was that you can only wear it as long as you are qualified.

[CAPSGT]

I wouldn't even bother trying to have CAP ICS 300/400 classes for the next year or two.  Every little VFD in the country is, or is going to be having them so there should be plenty of opportunities.

You hit the nail on the head.  ICS 300 and 400 should be taught in a multi agency multi discipline environment.  With so many volunteer agencies taking these classes right now you should not have a problem finding one. 

I'd love to have taken ICS 300 and think that'd be the prime way to take ICS-400.  This is particularly true with the case studies.  Problem is that I cannot find anybody in Maryland other than CAP that is teaching these courses on weekends.  As a result, I would have to use 40% of my vacation days for the year to take these courses.  I even get notifications from the state anytime an ICS-300 or 400 is being taught and have yet to find any.  They are really geared more towards the folks who get paid to do this stuff.

[isuhawkeye]

that's to bad.  I personally coordinated a weekend 300 class, and have 2 more lined up for later in the year.  with as beligerant as many of the east coast volunteer fire departments are you would think there would be more 300 classes

[Fifinella]

Being a Mission Observer, I was looking forward to learning the Air Operations Branch Director job.  Can't do that now though, someone decided that you have to have the Mission Pilot qualification first in order to be AOBD.  I'm not a pilot.   Without being an AOBD, you can't be an Operations Section Chief or a Planning Section Chief.  What that means now is that only pilots can be Incident Commanders.  Nice.   

Not True

CAPR 60-3, p.13 Planning Section Chief (PSC).
1) Trainee Prerequisites.  Satisfy the following to begin training for PSC:
a) Qualified Air Operations Branch Director or Ground Branch Director (need not be current).  Personnel
applying based on qualification as an Air Operations Branch Director requirement must have been qualified as a ground team or Urban DF team member at one time.  Personnel applying based on qualification as a Ground Branch Director must also have been qualified as a mission scanner at one time.

MS + GBD will get you PSC, etc, so you can still be an IC without being a pilot.

As far as incentive to work Mission Base...if 10 hours in a sweltering/freezing van full of teenagers looking for an impossibly-placed practice ELT doesn't motivate you to work in a comfortable climate-controlled Mission Base, I got nothin'.    Well, except donuts 

[Short Field]

MO or MP is required for AOBD.   AOBD plus GTM3 will get you started on PSC.

If anyone is mandating you have to be a MP to be AOBD, then ask to see the policy letter or regulation.   

There is a problem in that AOBD is requried to complete the Flight Release Officer course, but you must be a pilot or IC to be a FRO.   However, you do not need to be appointed a FRO in the system to be an AOBD - just complete the training.

[CAPSGT]

As far as incentive to work Mission Base...if 10 hours in a sweltering/freezing van full of teenagers looking for an impossibly-placed practice ELT doesn't motivate you to work in a comfortable climate-controlled Mission Base, I got nothin'.    Well, except donuts 

THAT'S IT!  We need to fix the Heat & A/C in our mission bases and break it in our vans!  Our vans seem to have better heat & air than our bases do here.

[_]

As far as incentive to work Mission Base...if 10 hours in a sweltering/freezing van full of teenagers looking for an impossibly-placed practice ELT doesn't motivate you to work in a comfortable climate-controlled Mission Base, I got nothin'.    Well, except donuts 

THAT'S IT!  We need to fix the Heat & A/C in our mission bases and break it in our vans!  Our vans seem to have better heat & air than our bases do here.

I'll trade you van's.  We haven't had properly functioning AC in quite a while.  The heat on the other hand is perfectly functional.  Plenty to give you heatstroke any time of year in under 5 minutes.

As for mission base training, I am technically a GOBD-T (only have prep and fam done) but I don't really get much of a chance to work on that.  Mainly because I have no other GTL on my team.  There is also the matter that in the field there is not as much in the way of higher ups constantly watching over my shoulder.  I'm more comfortable out in the field dealing with the other team leaders, and members, and the bugs.  Also I'm very weary of becoming a GOBD and never getting back out in the field.  There will be a time for me to get sucked into the black hole that is mission base but I don't think it will be for a little while.

It would be nice though to be able to stay at mission base and not have to spend upwards of a hundred dollars on gas for a van.

[Larry Mangum]

As some have already mentioned, if you have enough "qualified" mission staff, then the load can be shared and it is possible to still get to fly or ground pound.  I am rated as a Sr Observer and as a GTL and enjoy both, however there is also something to be said for being part of a well functioning mission staff that works well together. When that staff comes together and learns how to function as one team, they can accomplish the unbelievable.  I will admit that since I became an IC, I am not allowed to play in the field as much as I would like to.

[DNall]

I used to do tons upon tons of GT work, and my fair share of MO. Got kind of tired of turning off non-distress ELTs at 3am, especially when there were dozens of other people that really wanted to be there. I did SMC & really liked the high stress decision making operations aspect. So I trained up for GBD.

Now, I'm in the Army & very busy. I do my field playing with them. I don't have time to stay tip of the spear perfect for CAP field work. I still know everything for GT, bit out-dated for MO, but I let other people do that. I can roll in or serious missions as a GBD & work really well with the great team of folks we have around here. I can also run some seriously highspeed training for GT & keep air on their toes with the integration.

My higher stuff is outdated. I'm all signed off again for AOBD, but I'm not as confident in it as I'd like to be, so haven't put it thru. I'm headed to flight school soon. I'll feel good about AOBD when I get back. PSC & OSC are a snap. I've never had IC. I'll pick that up after I get back also. Then we deploy. After that I can settle back a bit & do some IC w/o jacking up everything else I got going.

[DeputyDog]

I have been told that the only people who work mission base positions are those either afraid to fly or those too old to continue flying.  That is BS IMHO.  However, how do you attract more people to train, get really qualified, and participate on a regular basis in the senior Mission Base positions?  Specifically I am looking at incentives to get people to pass up flying as a mission pilot or observer on a semi-regular basis to get qualified and experienced as AOBD, PSC, OSC, and IC.  The CUL, LSC, FASC, and other "skilled" staff positions are included as well. 

What do you think? 

Outside of using leadership and influence (or jacking with the a/c components in the vans...I really like that motivator BTW  ), I don't see any reasonable incentives. Over the last few years I have been talking one on one with a number of "new" ES junkies, and got them to agree that we really needed personnel trained as mission base staff. I have one officer in my squadron who *wants* to be FASC qualified. I think it had to do with dragging her along to the ICS 300 and 400 courses where she saw the light.

The idea, I believe, is to get the push from the wing director of emergency services (or group if it is an active command). If your wing doesn't stress the importance of having qualified mission base staff personnel, then individual efforts will be futile. If I were a commander and I had an operations officer say:

"why would I want to do that and be stuck at base all the time?"

...then I'd be shopping for a new operations officer.

What needs to be realized is that we volunteer our time to do something worthwhile. If you can show an officer (or cadet in some cases) that being an OSC, PSC, CUL, LSC, MSO, IO, LO or a FASC is just as worthwhile as the UDF/ground teams and aircrew duties, then you have your incentive. A mark of good leadership is knowing how to motivate, right?

[DeputyDog]

As some have already mentioned, if you have enough "qualified" mission staff, then the load can be shared and it is possible to still get to fly or ground pound.

My goal for my group (I'm a group emergency services training officer in addition to being an incident commander) is to get enough qualified personnel to go "three-deep" for each mission base staff position. With those numbers you can rotate out. Right now I'm nowhere near that goal though.

[DeputyDog]

AOBD plus GTM3 will get you started on PSC.

Even AOBD plus UDF counts for PSC.

[Short Field]

True - I missed that.  OR if your trainers only use the eServices Ops Quals SQTR sign-off, you just need to be either an AOBD or GBD to be a PSC.  That is in error but I wonder how many PSCs got qualified without the "other path" qualififications?

[Short Field]

Senior leadership does need to stress the importance of mission base - with actions as much as words.  That means motivating the Wing's Commanders to personallyl achieve high ES qualifications (why not at least IC3).  Any maybe changing the attitude of some Sq/CCs from "we are only a flying squadron - someone else can do the base stuff".