Incentives for Mission Base

[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.