Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 17, 2018, 02:29:10 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Emergency Services & Operations  |  Topic: ES - The forgotten mission?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All Print
Author Topic: ES - The forgotten mission?  (Read 2082 times)
CAPSOC_0pur8ur
Member

Posts: 52

« Reply #20 on: April 20, 2018, 01:27:24 PM »

CAPSOC,


respectfully suggest that you need to define your terms more closely. When you paint with a broad brush, e.g. "ES as a prerequisite" you will get broad brush responses "No and no". Since you ask, my response to your overly broad question is also "no and no", exactly because I will by default vote no on undefined, unbounded, poorly thought out proposals to change what has been refined by a 70 year process of trial and experimentation. Yeah


If you were to put forward specific proposals, you might merit a better, more thoughtful response. Were you to draw some comparison between 13 year old cadets taking AE tests although they're not Aerospace Engineers or pilots - and thus proposing similar training to teens who will not be certified first responders.  Try thinking about the CP framework within which you'd ask such questions: would you propose, for example, linking a first aid class to the Wright Bros. award, or the completion of communications training to the Mitchell (both of which awards have applicability well beyond the ES mission, which might be very limited for cadets as stated on a state by state basis). I think you'd get more traction.


So... can you think this through, and give us a better question set before hitting a reflexive reply all?  Give us some specific ideas.

V/r
Spam

(Obviously I'm in my Socratic mode today... I just mentored a new PhD in aircraft flight test methodology and the mood is still there..)






Itís not a proposal, itís a discussion. Iím not trying to implement change here, Iím just trying to define the problem and outline possible courses of action. If I wanted to implement change right now, an anonymous Internet forum is the last place Iíd go to do so.

Holding, I'm going to address each of your points for the sake of discussion. Please don't see this as me shooting down your suggestions.

1. If our training is so outdated that we aren't effective, maybe it's time we update it as well.

2. I'm not saying every cadet should go on real-world missions on a ground team. After all, we don't make cadets who are scared of heights do O flights. Likewise, we don't prevent cadets from flying because it's hard or dangerous. There are positions such as MSA, MRO, and other support staff positions that are neither high stress nor high tempo.

3. Again, there are support staff positions that, while being mission critical, are not dangerous our high stress.

1. Zero arguments here. I'd love to be helping rebuild our manuals.

2 (and 3). You are an MSA. A woman comes into the ICP crying because their daughter is missing and keeps asking you where she is over and over again. The site was just activated and it has a GTL whom is briefing a hasty team and a radio operator in a tent... and you. The IC is available by radio but is 30 minutes out. How many cadets are equipped mentally to deal with this problem? Note I'm not asking for the technical answer to the problem, but commenting on the mental issues at hand.

You are an MRO. This is your first time as an MRO and your best friend is on the first ground team heading out. You get a call from the radioman on the searchline that one of the members fell into a mine ventilation shaft that wasn't marked. How many cadets are equipped mentally to deal with this problem?

Thatís a fair argument, but there comes a point when we canít continue to live in fear. If we never take risks, weíll never get anything done.
Logged
"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. Thatís when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?Ē -Col John Boyd
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,131
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #21 on: April 20, 2018, 01:27:35 PM »

Follow on thought: this isn't the first time someone has taken a jibe at your screen name, "CAPSOC Operator".


It doesn't bother me personally, but in the light of being taken seriously, and since you appear to be in earnest with putting your thoughts forward re: ops and CP training, you might want to think about modifying your screen name to one less, shall we say, juvenile and amateurish. It would make you look far less like a wanna be kid and more like a person of sincere consideration.


Or at least phrase it in Cyrillic perhaps (grin and hat tip to MAJ Hatkevitch).


R/s
Spam
Logged
CAPSOC_0pur8ur
Member

Posts: 52

« Reply #22 on: April 20, 2018, 01:30:19 PM »

The name is a joke, specifically intended to make light of situations that CAP members tend to take far too seriously. But letís not get off topic here, we were just getting to the meaningful discussion.
Logged
"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. Thatís when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?Ē -Col John Boyd
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,131
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #23 on: April 20, 2018, 01:36:38 PM »

It seemed to be diverging, to me, into a "Cadets do/don't belong in the ES mission" thread, versus what appeared to me to be your original proposal to add ES tasks for cadet Achievements.

Suggest you make a clarification and press on, unless you just want a furball.

V/R
Spam
Logged
Holding Pattern
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,277
Unit: Worry

« Reply #24 on: April 20, 2018, 01:37:49 PM »

CAPSOC,


respectfully suggest that you need to define your terms more closely. When you paint with a broad brush, e.g. "ES as a prerequisite" you will get broad brush responses "No and no". Since you ask, my response to your overly broad question is also "no and no", exactly because I will by default vote no on undefined, unbounded, poorly thought out proposals to change what has been refined by a 70 year process of trial and experimentation. Yeah


If you were to put forward specific proposals, you might merit a better, more thoughtful response. Were you to draw some comparison between 13 year old cadets taking AE tests although they're not Aerospace Engineers or pilots - and thus proposing similar training to teens who will not be certified first responders.  Try thinking about the CP framework within which you'd ask such questions: would you propose, for example, linking a first aid class to the Wright Bros. award, or the completion of communications training to the Mitchell (both of which awards have applicability well beyond the ES mission, which might be very limited for cadets as stated on a state by state basis). I think you'd get more traction.


So... can you think this through, and give us a better question set before hitting a reflexive reply all?  Give us some specific ideas.

V/r
Spam

(Obviously I'm in my Socratic mode today... I just mentored a new PhD in aircraft flight test methodology and the mood is still there..)






Itís not a proposal, itís a discussion. Iím not trying to implement change here, Iím just trying to define the problem and outline possible courses of action. If I wanted to implement change right now, an anonymous Internet forum is the last place Iíd go to do so.

Holding, I'm going to address each of your points for the sake of discussion. Please don't see this as me shooting down your suggestions.

1. If our training is so outdated that we aren't effective, maybe it's time we update it as well.

2. I'm not saying every cadet should go on real-world missions on a ground team. After all, we don't make cadets who are scared of heights do O flights. Likewise, we don't prevent cadets from flying because it's hard or dangerous. There are positions such as MSA, MRO, and other support staff positions that are neither high stress nor high tempo.

3. Again, there are support staff positions that, while being mission critical, are not dangerous our high stress.

1. Zero arguments here. I'd love to be helping rebuild our manuals.

2 (and 3). You are an MSA. A woman comes into the ICP crying because their daughter is missing and keeps asking you where she is over and over again. The site was just activated and it has a GTL whom is briefing a hasty team and a radio operator in a tent... and you. The IC is available by radio but is 30 minutes out. How many cadets are equipped mentally to deal with this problem? Note I'm not asking for the technical answer to the problem, but commenting on the mental issues at hand.

You are an MRO. This is your first time as an MRO and your best friend is on the first ground team heading out. You get a call from the radioman on the searchline that one of the members fell into a mine ventilation shaft that wasn't marked. How many cadets are equipped mentally to deal with this problem?

Thatís a fair argument, but there comes a point when we canít continue to live in fear. If we never take risks, weíll never get anything done.

The tombstone of CAP's ES mission will read precisely that.
Logged
CAPSOC_0pur8ur
Member

Posts: 52

« Reply #25 on: April 20, 2018, 01:45:38 PM »

It seemed to be diverging, to me, into a "Cadets do/don't belong in the ES mission" thread, versus what appeared to me to be your original proposal to add ES tasks for cadet Achievements.

Suggest you make a clarification and press on, unless you just want a furball.

V/R
Spam


The purpose of the thread is to discuss why ES has been given a lower priority than the other missions, as well as possible remedies.
Logged
"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. Thatís when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?Ē -Col John Boyd
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,131
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #26 on: April 20, 2018, 01:48:23 PM »


Yeah... ok. I'm out.

Y'all have fun with this one.
Prediction: locked by midnight.

-  Spam

Logged
CAPSOC_0pur8ur
Member

Posts: 52

« Reply #27 on: April 20, 2018, 01:57:07 PM »

Honestly, I think the point of the post has been reached. We discussed why ES is generally a lower priority and a few possible fixes. There's not a whole lot we can do other than start planting bugs in ears about revamping our ES program, because the ultimate reason people aren't interested or involved is because CAP's ES program is outdated and needs to be reconstructed before it can be effective again.
Logged
"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. Thatís when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?Ē -Col John Boyd
jeders
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,100

« Reply #28 on: April 20, 2018, 02:17:49 PM »

It's not something you can disagree with... it's fact. CAP does not require members to attain ES quals. They do, however, require cadets to take leadership and AE tests in order to promote. See the difference? All three are missions of the CAP, but only two are actively enforced. As a result, ES often doesn't get the attention it needs or deserves.

They also don't require senior members to work with cadets. Nor are cadets required to attend activities outside the unit.

Around these parts, ES is very heavily stressed by those who are able and willing to participate in it, just like the cadet program. But, also like the cadet program, no one is forced to participate in it. If you feel that, based on your local observations, ES isn't stressed enough, then step up and do something about it. But making a program that has little to nothing to do with developing aerospace leaders and making it a requirement for a program that develops aerospace leaders is a really really bad idea.
Logged
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,874

« Reply #29 on: April 20, 2018, 02:22:53 PM »

It's not something you can disagree with... it's fact. CAP does not require members to attain ES quals. They do, however, require cadets to take leadership and AE tests in order to promote. See the difference? All three are missions of the CAP, but only two are actively enforced. As a result, ES often doesn't get the attention it needs or deserves.

They also don't require senior members to work with cadets. Nor are cadets required to attend activities outside the unit.

Around these parts, ES is very heavily stressed by those who are able and willing to participate in it, just like the cadet program. But, also like the cadet program, no one is forced to participate in it. If you feel that, based on your local observations, ES isn't stressed enough, then step up and do something about it. But making a program that has little to nothing to do with developing aerospace leaders and making it a requirement for a program that develops aerospace leaders is a really really bad idea.

I've never been a big fan of the 3 mission concept for exactly the reasons that you point out. In reality, there are only 2 missions: education and service. I do think that there should be a ES requirement to the Cadet Program. Too often you hear "I don't like ES" from cadets who are not being exposed to it. Can't form an opinion on something that you haven't been exposed to. It doesn't even have to be a heavy lift. Tie GENES to the Mitchell, in the same way that encampment is.
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
jeders
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,100

« Reply #30 on: April 20, 2018, 02:24:00 PM »

The purpose of the thread is to discuss why ES has been given a lower priority than the other missions, as well as possible remedies.

The fundamental flaw in that topic is that most of us don't agree with it based on our observations and experience. Around these parts we have monthly exercises plus numerous active missions which are stressed just as much as CP is. Many of these missions, however, are ones which cadets can't participate in. This highlights that CP and ES have different focuses and can't be ranked as one having higher or lower organizational priority.

What I'm trying to say is this, you're making broad statements about a national program based on only your local observations.
Logged
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse
J2H
Seasoned Member

Posts: 200
Unit: MER-MD-031

« Reply #31 on: April 20, 2018, 04:45:41 PM »

TBH I have no interest in ES, I joined for CP.
Logged
SSgt Jeffrey Hughes, Squadron NCO
Glenn L. Martin Composite Squadron MD-031
#217169
CAPSOC_0pur8ur
Member

Posts: 52

« Reply #32 on: April 20, 2018, 04:57:01 PM »

And they are those who have no interest in AE, but they still have to take the tests. Why? Because itís one of our missions.
Logged
"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. Thatís when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?Ē -Col John Boyd
jeders
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,100

« Reply #33 on: April 20, 2018, 05:02:35 PM »

And they are those who have no interest in AE, but they still have to take the tests. Why? Because itís one of our missions.

No, because it's an integral part of making dynamic aerospace leaders, ES isn't.
Logged
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse
CAPSOC_0pur8ur
Member

Posts: 52

« Reply #34 on: April 20, 2018, 05:08:28 PM »

Well duh. Obviously ES isnít an integral part of creating aerospace leaders. Itís an integral part of creating ES leaders. Creating aerospace leaders isnít one of CAPís missions. ES is.
Logged
"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. Thatís when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?Ē -Col John Boyd
abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,571
Unit: Classified

« Reply #35 on: April 20, 2018, 05:12:19 PM »

Well duh. Obviously ES isnít an integral part of creating aerospace leaders. Itís an integral part of creating ES leaders. Creating aerospace leaders isnít one of CAPís missions. ES is.

You need to go back and read up on CP..  ES is not the end all be all of CAP and really its ES junkies like you who turn people off to it.
Logged
CAPSOC_0pur8ur
Member

Posts: 52

« Reply #36 on: April 20, 2018, 05:21:17 PM »

Iím not an ES junky at all. Iím not even GTM3 certified. It just seems odd to me that itís the only one of our three missions that isnít stressed like the others. Either we should be effective in ES or we should change our missions.
Logged
"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. Thatís when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?Ē -Col John Boyd
jeders
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,100

« Reply #37 on: April 20, 2018, 05:24:32 PM »

Well duh. Obviously ES isnít an integral part of creating aerospace leaders. Itís an integral part of creating ES leaders. Creating aerospace leaders isnít one of CAPís missions. ES is.

I don't know you, so I have no idea what your involvement with cadets programs is, if you were ever a cadet, or if you've ever even thought about cadet programs. And so, I'm going to assume that you aren't familiar with the missions of the CAP cadet program, as taken from CAPR 60-1:

Quote
The Cadet Program transforms youth into dynamic Americans and aerospace leaders.

Emphasis mine. The CP is about making leaders with a heavy emphasis on aerospace. ES is about serving those outside of the organization. They are totally separate missions and neither is more or less important than the other. That we often times use cadets in ES does not mean that ES is a way to create leaders (though it does give leaders a chance to practice what they've learned in the CP realm).
Logged
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse
LSThiker
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,837
Unit: Earth

« Reply #38 on: April 20, 2018, 05:26:46 PM »

But when it comes to ES we're lacking... Badly. Ground team equipment is outdated at best, and downright useless at worst.

I agree that I think NHQ has been severely lacking on the Ground Team side of ES.  It seems as though most resources are being pushed for the cell forensics (at least as an outsider, but perhaps I am wrong).  Our current missions appear to be mostly aircrew related missions (not necessarily bad).  The Ground Team does not seem to have nearly as much love, depending on where you are locally.  I know some wings, groups, and squadrons push GT work heavily. 

Quote
Cadets usually aren't even GTM3,and most of those who are have never been on a real-world mission.

I guess the assessment for this is rather based on anecdotal evidence for your area.  In some of the more geographically separated wings, I have seen cadets that are mostly ground team.  However, I would agree that the numbers are decreasing, especially since switching to 406 mHz.  I am not blaming the FAA or the Government powers that required the switch.  The better technology results in less used resources and quicker rescue. 

However, some squadrons probably will never get an ES mission, so why train in that area.  For example, an inner city squadron probably is not going to have the opportunity to go ELT hunting or really go for a missing person search.  If that is true, training is a waste of time if you are not going to use it.  Of course, there is the disaster relief component.  However, one does not need GT training to know how to fill sand bags.  Although I would like to see the GT curriculum geared more towards missing person and disaster relief work and less on the ELT hunt.   

Quote
Why doesn't ES have a required test? Why can't GTM3 be a requirement for Mitchell, and GES be a requirement for the Wright Brothers? Why should the other two missions of CAP be pre-requisites for promotions while ES isn't?

This idea is definitely not new.  It has been tossed around for years and years and decades.  However, there are a few aspects to consider.  ES, while important, is also a decision for the parents.  While I would not knowingly expose a young cadet or otherwise immature cadet to a horrible crash scene, it may very well happen.  For this reason, some parents may have reservations for their child to participate in ES.  What happens if the parent refuses to allow their child to participate in ES training?  Should we hold the cadet up simply because the parent is refusing?  Although you could make the same argument for encampment (parents not allowing their child to go).  Nevertheless, I could see an argument for requiring at least General ES training and/or perhaps MSA or MRO or FLM.  Although, I am always worried that some SMs might see the cadet program as nothing more than a paperwork runner and simply "abuse" (not the right word here) the MSA position. 



That all said, the goal of the Cadet Program is to make aerospace leaders.  Hard to accomplish that without teaching aerospace.  As such aerospace is an integral part of the CP.  On the other hand, ES is not an integral part of the CP as the goal of the CP is not to train ES leaders.  While ES is a mission of CAP, it is not required for any cadet or senior member to participate in ES to contribute to CAP, just as much as it is not required for any SM to participate in the CP. 

I agree that CAP needs to get a bit more focused on its ES side.  Compared to the other missions (AE and CP), it seems like ES is the slowest to move.  How long did it take to get the ES specialty track updated?  Why is the GT task guide still from 2004?  Why are the ES GT Slides so far out of date?  And numerous other examples.  It seems that the National ES Officer needs to get to work updating the GT side of the ES house.  I would not want to increase the workload of NESA, as they already have enough on their own plates, but perhaps a National Staff person solely dedicated to keeping the GT Curriculum up-to-date would be beneficial. 
« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 05:31:41 PM by LSThiker » Logged
jeders
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,100

« Reply #39 on: April 20, 2018, 05:26:58 PM »

It just seems odd to me that itís the only one of our three missions that isnít stressed like the others.

You keep saying that, but you're wrong. I've got way more emails in my CAP mailbox about ES opportunities than I do about CP opportunities. Again, in your small part of the world your observations may be correct; if that's the case then step up and do something. In other parts of CAP (and aside from the areas where CAP legally can't operate or won't ever be invited to the table) ES is heavily stressed, both in general terms and within cadet units.
Logged
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Emergency Services & Operations  |  Topic: ES - The forgotten mission?
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.131 seconds with 20 queries.