Cadets under 18 wearing aircrew wings

[xray328]

Can cadets that successfully complete the GIIEP course at NESA (ground based training) wear aircrew wings? I don't see anything in the 39-1 or on the NESA site, thanks.

[PHall]

Well, the 39-1 does not cover the Qualifications needed to earn the wings, just where to put them once you're awarded them.
This sounds like an excellent research project for your cadet. Find which reg or manual covers this and see if they qualify.

[SMWOG]

Are you a scanner? What does your 101 card say?

[Eclipse]

You have to be over 18 to earn the wings - cadets under 18 only participate in ground-based training.

CAPR 35-6 Page 2:
"j. CAP Aircrew Rating: Be qualified as a CAP Mission Scanner (MS), Aerial Digital
Imaging System Operator (ADIS), Airborne Photographer (AP), ARCHER Operator
(ARCHOPR), ARCHER Trac Technician (ARCHTRK), Geospatial Information Interoperability
Exploitation Portable Operator (GIIEP), Surrogate Unmanned Aerial System Green Flag Sensor
Operator (GFSO), or Highbird Radio Operator (HRO)."

Without sorties they won't be qualified as GIIEP, in fact, under 18 there's no way they could fly the requisite sorties.

My understanding was you had to be a Mission Scanner before training for GIIEP, but I can't confirm that as there still is no GIIEP SQTR
publicly available.

[PHall]

You have to be over 18 to earn the wings - cadets under 18 only participate in ground-based training.

CAPR 35-6 Page 2:
"j. CAP Aircrew Rating: Be qualified as a CAP Mission Scanner (MS), Aerial Digital
Imaging System Operator (ADIS), Airborne Photographer (AP), ARCHER Operator
(ARCHOPR), ARCHER Trac Technician (ARCHTRK), Geospatial Information Interoperability
Exploitation Portable Operator (GIIEP), Surrogate Unmanned Aerial System Green Flag Sensor
Operator (GFSO), or Highbird Radio Operator (HRO)."

Without sorties they won't be qualified as GIIEP, in fact, under 18 there's no way they could fly the requisite sorties.

My understanding was you had to be a Mission Scanner before training for GIIEP, but I can't confirm that as there still is no GIIEP SQTR
publicly available.

Thanks Bob, kinda wanted the cadet to do the research. But they don't have to now since you did it for them.

[abdsp51]

The OP is not a cadet but a SM and parent of 2 cadets. 

[Eclipse]

Thanks Bob, kinda wanted the cadet to do the research. But they don't have to now since you did it for them.

For starters, this isn't a cadet asking the question.

Second, going into the new year I'm going to try to answer straight questions like this with straight answers.
We've tried it the other way for ten+ years, let's see where being helpful gets us.

[xray328]

Reason I'm asking is that I saw a cadet wearing them and he stated that cadets that graduated NESA's GIIEP course are authorized. NESA offers cadets the training, In just not sure on the wearing the aircrew wings, I'd always thought that was something you couldn't earn until you were 18 or if GIIEP=Aircrew (even for the guys on the ground). I know it says cadets only get ground based training though.

According to the NESA site don't need to be a scanner. GTM and UDF will also get you in the door.

http://nesa.cap.gov/giiep-operator/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eclipse]

http://nesa.cap.gov/giiep-operator/

"Cadets under the age of 18 will complete ground based exercises. Cadets age 18 or older and senior members will complete airborne exercises. All participants will receive the same classroom training."

Your first problem was "...a cadet stated...".     

There's no allowance, at least not in the regs, to earn Flightcrew Wings under 18.

Your best bet would be to contact on of the guys running the GIIEP school who is in your wing.

[Spam]

Several times in recent years, I've had members return from NESA and other Wing level schools (e.g. ALWG WESS school) proudly sporting devices on their uniform that had not been officially awarded on any orders (either in eservices or in cut orders on paper).  That includes under 18s returning with GTM basic and senior badges, and two over 18 cadets wearing aircrew wings (MO). I've had to patiently explain to them that the decoration is separate from the rating, which is all that the schools can offer, and that they need to remove the decoration until my staff and I look up their quals and cut the official orders. Typically we try to brief them before they attend, and ask that they refrain until we can richly applaud them publicly and wing them on their return. (I know LTC Long and others will be reading this, and would be interested in their thoughts... pinning people prematurely at the activity without competent orders leads to long term problems, in my view).


Now, a cadet who stated that he was authorized to ATTEND and GRADUATE the GIIEP school, I can believe. Attendance though does not equate to the rating (especially for the under 18 non flying option), and without the qualification the decoration should not be awarded. If he cannot provide the paper orders or show the eservices action he, like any member, needs to remove the device from his uniform.


Of course, if he isn't in your chain, Xray, the tactful thing to do is to have a quiet chat with his commander.


V/r
Spam

[Spaceman3750]

All NGSAR graduates receive a PA awarding the badge appropriate to their course. This is consistent with CAPR 35-6 sec 8.

[Eclipse]

That includes under 18s returning with GTM basic and senior badges, and two over 18 cadets wearing aircrew wings (MO). I've had to patiently explain to them that the decoration is separate from the rating, which is all that the schools can offer, and that they need to remove the decoration until my staff and I look up their quals and cut the official orders. Typically we try to brief them before they attend, and ask that they refrain until we can richly applaud them publicly and wing them on their return.

No, it is not, at least not for the initial award.

NESA, at least, is a national school, and their authority to award qualifications is also national.  Your need to "cut orders" (whatever that means) pre-supposes you have the authority to deny the award, which you do not.

The members earn the qualification and requisite badge upon ceritfication of the activity director with the
appropriate rights, and your approval is not necessary orrequired, nor do you have the authority to
revoke a qualification or badge without cause, nor request a member remove the badge pending your "award".

CAPR 35-6 Page 4-5
https://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R035_006_70213217D50CA.pdf
8. Procedures for Awarding Aeronautical Ratings and Awards, Emergency Services
(ES), Ground Team, and Incident Commander Badges, and ES Patches:

a. Awards will automatically be recorded when requirements for qualifications or
certifications are earned and approved in the National Headquarters Operations Qualifications or
other CAP membership systems hosted by National Headquarters; other awards will be manually
entered. Members may be required to provide proof that they meet the requirements of this
regulation in order for commanders to approve higher level awards or historic awards properly.
School/activity directors will publish and input certified graduate lists into the National
Headquarters Operations Qualifications and membership systems to avoid inundating command
echelons with award requests. NHQ CAP/DO will coordinate limited access for approved
school/activity directors to the National Headquarters qualification and certification system with
NHQ/IT to input their certifications; requests for access should be sent to do@capnhq.gov at
least 30 days in advance of the school/activity.

b. CAP wing or region commanders (or their designees) and school/activity directors, as
appropriate, are the approval authority for the award of aeronautical ratings, ES qualification,
ground team, or incident commander badges, and ES patches to members within their
organization. Each wing and region is encouraged to host schools like the National Emergency
Services Academy with the intent of qualifying their members. All schools must ensure trainees
meet the current regulatory requirements for qualification in the specialty before ratings are
awarded.

c. When the wing or region commander (or their designees) approves the request, or the
school/activity director certifies completion, the appropriate entry will automatically be made in
the member's online records.

d. Ratings are effective the date the entry is approved by the wing or region commander
(or their designees), or the date the school/activity director certifies completion as appropriate in
the National Headquarters Operations Qualifications system.

e. Once a rating, award, badge, or patch is earned in accordance with this regulation, the
member may continue to wear it even if they no longer hold the associated qualifications unless
directed by the wing, region, or national commander to remove it through another formal
command action.

Note also that a unit CC does not have the authority to order a member remove a badge earned as above.

If the box isn't checked in Ops Quals when they get back, that's an administrative oversight, not
a cause to tell someone to remove a badge they just spent 1-2 weeks earning.

[Luis R. Ramos]

I had a cadet that went to a Group bivouac with no ES tasks except GES. When he came back he had GTM 3 Training, short one of the sorties for the full GTM qualification. His record had the ES patch approved. I do not know how, but I made sure I removed that thing.

Maybe by mistake these cadets are awarded these aeronautical and ES ratings. Someone may be doing a multi-CAPID update. So we have to keep checking their records. And I never do those. I go one by one whenever I have to update a cadet record whether it is safety or ES.

[Spam]

You are incorrect, Eclipse. YES, it is separate, in terms of the Ops Quals sub module. You need to go look at Ops Quals, Eclipse, and explore the "Ratings, Awards & Badges" sub module, which is not linked automatically to the qual modules. Subparagraphs A and D, quoted and boldfaced, do not reflect Ops Quals reality. One must separately enter/submit/approve the qual, then go into the separate sub module for the award. I'm pleased to accept that when I see it (but it isn't automatic, and it rarely happens).


I'd like to retract the single phrase in my above post, "which is all that the schools can offer". Obviously, I'm out of date there.

Nevertheless, we still see people come home from various activities without either the hand carried 2A, or the online award in Ops Quals (either of which I'd accept). For several years, we waited weeks without seeing either, so this is the process we follow for quality control. We brief them before they go as part of their prep, we review their Ops Quals records on return (where they invariably are properly updated for their qualifications) and then I approve the badge, done. There's no mistrust of the training, just that we're OBSERVING that the wings/badges usually aren't being awarded, and that we take steps to make the orders match reality.

I mention quality control since years ago we saw confused instances where, for example, a cadet once donned a Senior GT badge after completing the basic school (only), because their pals had completed the advanced course, and he mistakenly assumed the same applied to him. I had another cadet who jumped the gun and started wearing her badge before completing the full requirement on a multi-weekend Wing school. Yes, I absolutely have the responsibility as a CO to correct that, because in such instances the member had not yet earned the award.

For a standard, even and impartial treatment we do this review for all returning members. Years ago, prior to the 2015 dumbing down of the requirement. I caught flak from around our Wing because I had four or five cadets wearing Senior GT badges (with the star) showing up to missions with our four adult GTLs with Master GT badges, and we had people stating that we were "obviously making this stuff up"... so, in reaction, we trust, but verify, impartially, and thus I can answer to my chain that we're strac and correct.

Commanders absolutely have the authority (and are required to) review member decorations to ensure we're compliant. The paperwork must match the bling, or it comes off until we fix the paperwork or complete the training.


Spam
PS. Luis, you're right on track there. Trust but verify, as Reagan said.

[Eclipse]

You are incorrect, Eclipse. YES, it is separate, in terms of the Ops Quals sub module. You need to go look at Ops Quals, Eclipse, and explore the "Ratings, Awards & Badges" sub module, which is not linked automatically to the qual modules. Subparagraphs A and D, quoted and boldfaced, do not reflect Ops Quals reality. One must separately enter/submit/approve the qual, then go into the separate sub module for the award. I'm pleased to accept that when I see it (but it isn't automatic, and it rarely happens).

I never said it was "linked" in anything.  By the regulation quoted, the badge is awarded upon completion / entry in
ops quals - whether or not the box is checked in a sub module is irrelevant, nor is any action beyond a click required, and certainly not a 2A, which has never, ever been required for any ES badges - I can't tell you how many times someone has tried to assert that GT badges and wings require an "other" F2a.  No, they were earned when you completed the rating
when it was approved with no further action required.

As I said above, this is an administrative disconnect and shouldn't even be mentioned to the member beyond "I took care of it for you."

If for some reason paper is important, then the signed SQTR would be the only appropriate document, which would unfortunately still have to be entered and validated by the SET(s) online anyway.

Commanders absolutely have the authority (and are required to) review member decorations to ensure we're compliant. The paperwork must match the bling, or it comes off until we fix the paperwork or complete the training.

That goes without saying but is not what you said your practice is / was, and which now hopefully will cease.

...they need to remove the decoration until my staff and I look up their quals and cut the official orders.

"Years ago" 1/2 the country used the WMU for ES ratings and the other 1/2 used a stegosaurus bone etched with cut marks.  Today everyone uses eServices and qualifications are nationally recognized, including SET with no allowance for
"extra" rules.  There's nothing wrong with verifying ratings - it takes 45 seconds - after which you can
then congratulate the member on their accomplishment, but only in cases where the verification fails can you
direct them to remove any badges.

[Spam]

Oh, because you didnt say it, it isn't so?


This has been discussed and settled before. Storm Chaser summarized it nicely. You simply don't understand how it works, apparently:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=18774.0 and persist in letting your ego stand in the way of looking at the system.


"whether or not the box is checked in a sub module is irrelevant". Sure. You go ahead and tell people they're approved without due diligence, then check their online records (the award wont show, because the wings aren't authorized in the system). But, you'll probably be OK with them pinning on, onto their civilian coats of many colors as well.


Your ego... sheesh.

[Eclipse]

This has been discussed and settled before. Storm Chaser summarized it nicely. You simply don't understand how it works, apparently:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=18774.0 and persist in letting your ego stand in the way of looking at the system.

The "system" being broken doesn't change the very clear verbiage of the regulation.

The badge is not earned separately, it's earned upon completion of the requisite qualification, tracking them in eServices is an administrative function
unrelated to the authorization to wear them.  Please cite anywhere it indicates the badge itself has to be approved a second time for the member to wear it.

Senior and Master A/C ratings are an anomaly unto themselves as there is no process beyond a CC's subjective review of log books and time-in for approval,
however that doesn't change the verbiage in the regulation that upon that review and approval, the badge is "approved", whether or not it's been clicked in Ops Quals,
which isn't even mentioned.

The only reason that module exist at all as a separate entity from the quals themselves, is to maintain a historical record of them being earned
because "some commanders" were telling members who weren't current they had to remove their badges because there was no record in their
files (or sometimes no files) of earning it / them in the past, owing again to the member's Stegosaurus bone not having the proper etchings.

[foo]

My wing recently communicated to its members that ES badges should not be worn until the rating is approved in eServices, even if all of the individual SQTR tasks have been checked off.

Awards will automatically be recorded when requirements for qualifications or certifications are earned and approved in the National Headquarters Operations Qualifications or other CAP membership systems hosted by National Headquarters

Seems clear enough to me. Completing all of the SQTR tasks goes to meeting the requirements, but there is no rating until it is approved.

[Eclipse]

My wing recently communicated to its members that ES badges should not be worn until the rating is approved in eServices, even if all of the individual SQTR tasks have been checked off.

Awards will automatically be recorded when requirements for qualifications or certifications are earned and approved in the National Headquarters Operations Qualifications or other CAP membership systems hosted by National Headquarters

Seems clear enough to me. Completing all of the SQTR tasks goes to meeting the requirements, but there is no rating until it is approved.

Agreed - At least in the case of NESA, which is what this is primarily discussing, those ratings are fully approved by the activity with no further action required.

[xray328]

I just confirmed that the cadets are flying at NESA with the GIIEP equipment on a "C" mission which qualifies them to wear the aircrew wings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eclipse]

I just confirmed that the cadets are flying at NESA with the GIIEP equipment on a "C" mission which qualifies them to wear the aircrew wings.

Only those over 18 correct?

[xray328]

No, I specifically asked about cadets under 18.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eclipse]

No, I specifically asked about cadets under 18.

OK, I know who you talked to, so I don't question this is happening,  but the whole thing is "odd".

How can they even release the flight with a cadet under 18 on board as part of crew? (or for anything other then a transport mission?)

Does this preclude the requirement that the PIC be an instructor pilot to carry cadets? (these aren't o-rides)

Why are these being done as C-Missions?  GIIEP training is clearly an AFAM normally, at minimum these should go as "B" unfunded.
Did someone do ORM math on under 18 cadets as part of aircrew and think doing it as a "C" un-regs the minimum 18 Year old requirement for all other A/C jobs?

This also conflicts with what the NESA / GIIEP website says (which doesn't necessarily mean much).

Does anyone have a copy of the secret-squirrel GIIEP SQTR?

Is there anyone from the MAS who can comment here?

[THRAWN]

Just a random question and it's mostly because I'm doing 4 other things and can't look it up. Where is the requirement that Cadets be 18 to be aircrew? PM me if you'd like to answer with colorful metaphors.

[Eclipse]

Just a random question and it's mostly because I'm doing 4 other things and can't look it up. Where is the requirement that Cadets be 18 to be aircrew? PM me if you'd like to answer with colorful metaphors.

The AP/MS/MO/MP/GFSO SQTRS make that a pre-req. "Age Eligibility 18 Years".

Of course GIIEP and HRO are not available to view, so don't know what those say - may be an omission, intentional or otherwise.

I don't see any reason why cadets under 18 couldn't be ground station operators, but A/C is a different story.
I would also think it would make common sense that a GIIEP operator needs to be an MS first as a pre-req.  You can't be an AP without that.

[THRAWN]

Thanks. Just a thought though, if it's not a regulatory requirement, where's the issue? Lots of CAPDOCS say a lot of stuff, but if it isn't in the reg, kind of makes it not enforcable.

[Eclipse]

Thanks. Just a thought though, if it's not a regulatory requirement, where's the issue? Lots of CAPDOCS say a lot of stuff, but if it isn't in the reg, kind of makes it not enforcable.

Can't argue that philosophically, but from a practical standpoint, you can't approve even fam / prep or trainee status without
either meeting that or falsifying that.

Edit: 60-3 calls out the SQTRs as the qualifying requirements, ergo...
See page 25
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R060_003_075A4369FBA8E.pdf

"a. First, prerequisites must be completed prior to initiating training requirements. "

[husker]

Spam - neither NESA nor WESS hands out the badge unless they have actually graduated the program (which includes passing all of the tasks, etc.).  During each graduation, I have a list of students behind me who I do not hand the badge to, and someone behind me reminding me as each team comes up.   If we have handed out the badges to those who are not eligible for the ratings, then that is on us (me).  I would like to know the specifics (and certainly please let me know if you run into it again) so that I can rectify the situation.   You absolutely have the right to question members coming back with "bling" from any school, and hope that you give me the opportunity to fix any issues you see.   We have a great system to track the tasks and upload them automatically into OpsQuals, so there is not much room for error. By the same token I hand out badges to pretty close to 500 people a year between WESS and NESA, so the "error field" is large.

I did confirm with LTC Templeton (the MAS Commandant at NESA) that under 18 cadets in GIIEP at NESA do NOT fly.

[Eclipse]

I did confirm with LTC Templeton (the MAS Commandant at NESA) that under 18 cadets in GIIEP at NESA do NOT fly.

Well there you go - Thanks Husker!

[Spam]

Spam - neither NESA nor WESS hands out the badge unless they have actually graduated the program (which includes passing all of the tasks, etc.).  During each graduation, I have a list of students behind me who I do not hand the badge to, and someone behind me reminding me as each team comes up.   If we have handed out the badges to those who are not eligible for the ratings, then that is on us (me).  I would like to know the specifics (and certainly please let me know if you run into it again) so that I can rectify the situation.   You absolutely have the right to question members coming back with "bling" from any school, and hope that you give me the opportunity to fix any issues you see.   We have a great system to track the tasks and upload them automatically into OpsQuals, so there is not much room for error. By the same token I hand out badges to pretty close to 500 people a year between WESS and NESA, so the "error field" is large.

I did confirm with LTC Templeton (the MAS Commandant at NESA) that under 18 cadets in GIIEP at NESA do NOT fly.

You'll keep seeing our folks - we greatly appreciate the consistently high standard of training and certification at these events. Y'all do good work.

I knew you'd have the right answer, sir. Thanks!

V/r
Spam

[Fubar]

I did confirm with LTC Templeton (the MAS Commandant at NESA) that under 18 cadets in GIIEP at NESA do NOT fly.

Can you complete the GIIEP SQTR without flying? This would suggest cadets under 18 cannot earn the qualification.

[waukwiz]

There was a GIIEP training at my squadron several months ago, and I know of at least one cadet under age 18 received GIIEP quals for it.

Cadet Cullen Mayes
GLR-WI-048
"Flight Sergeant, why are we standing here in the mud?"

[Fubar]

There was a GIIEP training at my squadron several months ago, and I know of at least one cadet under age 18 received GIIEP quals for it.

Does the SQTR involve any required flights/sorties?

[waukwiz]

There was a GIIEP training at my squadron several months ago, and I know of at least one cadet under age 18 received GIIEP quals for it.

Does the SQTR involve any required flights/sorties?

Would have to ask him, and he doesn't like answering my texts [emoji12]  so likely the earliest I could get you an answer is a week from today.

Cadet Cullen Mayes
GLR-WI-048
"Flight Sergeant, why are we standing here in the mud?"

[Eclipse]

Why isn't this magic SQTR publicly available?

[xray328]

My daughter wants to go to this (GIIEP) but I'm not even sure what rating she comes away with.  It bothers me that there's so many unknowns.  With the SQTR not available are we sure cadets aren't flying under C missions numbers?  I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but if she goes down there and gets hurt I just want to make sure she's covered.

[Storm Chaser]

As a commander, I would not approve aircrew wings if an individual completes the qualification without air sorties? Why? Because it's an aircrew badge. You must be an aircrew member to earn the badge. And cadets under 18 cannot be aircrew members. It's that simple.

[Storm Chaser]

My daughter wants to go to this (GIIEP) but I'm not even sure what rating she comes away with.  It bothers me that there's so many unknowns.  With the SQTR not available are we sure cadets aren't flying under C missions numbers?  I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but if she goes down there and gets hurt I just want to make sure she's covered.

Cadets (or any members for that matter) should not be pursuing training just to earn a badge or rating. I know of cadets who assist with GIIEP in the ground and are quite good at it. At the end, it's about the skills and experience acquired and how they can later contribute to executing our missions.

Of course, your questions and concerns regarding the flying portion are very valid. This information should be available, just like other SQTRs.

[xray328]

My daughter wants to go to this (GIIEP) but I'm not even sure what rating she comes away with.  It bothers me that there's so many unknowns.  With the SQTR not available are we sure cadets aren't flying under C missions numbers?  I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but if she goes down there and gets hurt I just want to make sure she's covered.

Cadets (or any members for that matter) should not be pursuing training just to earn a badge or rating. I know of cadets who assist with GIIEP in the ground and are quite good at it. At the end, it's about the skills and experience acquired and how they can later contribute to executing our missions.

Of course, your questions and concerns regarding the flying portion are very valid. This information should be available, just like other SQTRs.

I agree, but we don't know what training they do receive, period. 

[xray328]

And just so we're all clear, under 18 cadets can't fly on Corporate Missions right?  There's no manipulation of the rules that could maybe let this happen?

[Fubar]

And just so we're all clear, under 18 cadets can't fly on Corporate Missions right?  There's no manipulation of the rules that could maybe let this happen?

They can't serve in any mission crew capacity (MS/MO), but if the C mission is simply for personnel relocation or something along those lines, I don't see why they can't serve as ballast. Heck, I'd like to see on A missions if there is space (or weight) available for a cadet to tag along for the experience, but I'm not sure that's allowed.

[Storm Chaser]

All aircrew SQTRs in Ops Quals (MS, AP, MO, TMP, MP, etc.) require members to be 18 or older. Unfortunately, the GIIEP SQTR is not available publicly, so I don't know what the requirements are.

Neither CAPR 60-1 nor CAPR  60-3 are specific about whether cadets under 18 can fly on anything other than Orientation Flights, transport to and from location, or flight instruction. CAPR 60-3, Para. 1-10e, does state, "Additional guidance for employing cadets on missions can be found on the NHQ CAP/DOS website." The CAP/DOS website states the following:

Only cadets 18 years of age and older, who hold a valid CAPF 101, Specialty Qualification Card are authorized to fly on aircraft involved in the performance of emergency services operations. Any cadet may be flown directly to and from a mission base when needed to perform mission duties, provided the pilot-in-command is at least a qualified mission transport pilot.

If cadets under 18 are indeed doing ES flight training on C missions, I suspect someone has decided to interpret this guidance in a more liberal fashion. Personally, I prefer to interpret it in a more conservative way, which is what I normally do when guidance seems lacking or in a gray area. Of course, it's probably best to seek clarification from NESA or the CAP/DO.

[Eclipse]

And just so we're all clear, under 18 cadets can't fly on Corporate Missions right?  There's no manipulation of the rules that could maybe let this happen?

They can't serve in any mission crew capacity (MS/MO), but if the C mission is simply for personnel relocation or something along those lines, I don't see why they can't serve as ballast. Heck, I'd like to see on A missions if there is space (or weight) available for a cadet to tag along for the experience, but I'm not sure that's allowed.

Being "ballast" isn't being part of the crew, and there are special crew requirements any time you transport cadets for any reason.

One of the responsibilities of an FRO is making sure that the crew is properly qualified for any given sortie, and this would be a red flag
when going into the release system (either the cadet not being on the manifest, not being listed as crew, or not having the proper quals).

I don't see any way a cadet under 18 can be released as part of "crew" - the mission type A,B,or C is an administrative matter
related to funding and insurance coverage - the rules about who can fly and when do not change between symbols.

[PHall]

So why is the GIIEP SQTR not available?  It's not like it Classified or something.

[Eclipse]

So why is the GIIEP SQTR not available?  It's not like it Classified or something.

Based on the most recent training slides, it doesn't appear to actually exist in a formal way.

[waukwiz]

So why is the GIIEP SQTR not available?  It's not like it Classified or something.

Based on the most recent training slides, it doesn't appear to actually exist in a formal way.

Here's the CAPF101 of the cadet I mentioned earlier. It certainly does exist.



The only potential reason I can imagine as to why the SQTR is secret is potential weak points it would show to those wishing to eavesdrop on the system (maybe???)

Cadet Cullen Mayes
GLR-WI-048
"Flight Sergeant, why are we standing here in the mud?"

[xray328]

I think the issue is whether or not flying is required to achieve the rating, and if so how cadets under 18 are achieving it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eclipse]

Based on the most recent training slides, it doesn't appear to actually exist in a formal way.

Here's the CAPF101 of the cadet I mentioned earlier. It certainly does exist.

We know the rating exists, it's the SQTR we're discussing - the infinity symbol is also a red flag as all "real"
ES quals expire in 3 years without recurrent training, which is also not currently possible sans an approved SQTR with
recurrent tasks.

There's supposed to be Commander approval for all ratings as well, FAM / Prep, Pre-req, and Final, however
NESA staff have rights which trump local CCs.

The briefing slides on the national website indicate that the SQTR and 3-year recurrency are still in draft, that
was a year ago, which by CAP standards = "new".

The only potential reason I can imagine as to why the SQTR is secret is potential weak points it would show to those wishing to eavesdrop on the system (maybe???)

We're using "secret" in a facetious manner - it simple isn't final / approved, so a few people have the ability to manually approve members.
This is much the same as when AP was a thing but had no SQTR.  This is 10+ year old technology which is hardly confidential.

The most likely scenario is that the draft SQTR simply forgot to include "minimum 18 Years old" and / or "Mission Scanner" as pre-req.
There's no reason cadets couldn't be ground station qualified in this, but not air crew by the current standards.

If any cadets did, in fact, fly a mission under 18, that is not likely to happen again after this public conversation.

[fixed quotes]

[waukwiz]

Based on the most recent training slides, it doesn't appear to actually exist in a formal way.

Here's the CAPF101 of the cadet I mentioned earlier. It certainly does exist.

/quote]

We know the rating exisits, it's the SQTR we're discussing - also, the infinity symbol is also a red flag as all real
ES quals expire in 3 years without recurrent training, which is also not currently possible.

The briefing slides on the national website indicate that the SQTR and 3-year recurrency are still in draft, that
was a year ago, which by CAP standards = "new".

The only potential reason I can imagine as to why the SQTR is secret is potential weak points it would show to those wishing to eavesdrop on the system (maybe???)

We're using "secret in a facetious manner - it simple isn't final / approved, so a few people have the ability to manually approve members.
This is much the same as when AP was a thing but had no SQTR.

I get that it's being said facetiously, just trying to think outside the box.

But I guess when you frame it that way, I could understand it being something without a check off list of tasks to complete.

I had only contemplated that it DID exist, just was not public for some strange, above-my-pay-grade reason.

[Eclipse]

CAP received it's first 5 GIIEP systems in Jan 2011, and had been using it on "please can we borrow it basis" for a year or two before that.

The scuttle at the time, actually, was that the Guard was moving on to New! Exciting!, and CAP was the beneficiary of their no longer needing it.

From my low vantage point and conversations with several of the players, it appears that CAP did such a good job using what it was given that
it re-invigoratated the program and technology itself.

[xray328]

So, if cadets are being awarded the GIIEP rating and GIIEP operators are authorized the aircrew wings, doesn't that mean that cadets are authorized to wear them? The 39-1 specifically says cadets and seniors are authorized and does not differentiate between cadets over or under 18, nor is there an under/over 18 GIIEP rating.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eclipse]

So, if cadets are being awarded the GIIEP rating and GIIEP operators are authorized the aircrew wings, doesn't that mean that cadets are authorized to wear them? The 39-1 specifically says cadets and seniors are authorized and does not differentiate between cadets over or under 18, nor is there an under/over 18 GIIEP rating.

I'd say more detail from Lt Col Templeton is needed as to how, exactly, these cadets earned the GIIEP rating and
whether there is a differentiation between a ground operator and air crew member (beyond what the regs say which make no distinction).

I would think the original intent and assumption would be that GIIEP rated members would be aircrew and aircrew have to be 18.

I ran this by CAP-USAF and they don't know how a cadet under 18 could fly as actual aircrew, either, since there's no allowance for that
in the regs that actually allow cadets to fly and all mentions assume over 18.

My guess is that this was "one of those things" and won't happen again, assuming it did, and if ground operators are going to get wings,
that needs to be added to the regs.

[Luis R. Ramos]

CAPM 39-1 does not state who qualifies to wear what rating, only where the wing or insignia is worn. The regulation that authorizes aeronautical ratings is CAPR 35-6. I quote:

CAP Aircrew  Rating:

Be qualified as a CAP Mission Scanner (MS), Aerial Digital Imaging System Operator (ADIS), Airborne Photographer (AP), ARCHER Operator (ARCHOPR), ARCHER Trac Technician (ARCHTRK), Geospatial Information Interoperability Exploitation Portable Operator (GIIEP), Surrogate Unmanned Aerial System Green Flag Sensor Operator (GFSO), or Highbird Radio Operator (HRO). 

Others will disagree with me, but if you read any other aero ratings in the regulation quoted, it specifies flying times or prerequirements that require the person be above 18. It may have been a typo not to include "above 18 years," or it may have been because it is being developed. I would take advantage of this omission and let those cadets under 18 years apply for it. Since this award has to be approved by those above the squadron anyway, I would justify it by stating "It appears the intent was for the basic badge to be awarded to any member qualifying as GIIEP regardless of age since the Senior and Master do state specific age while the Basic does not require such." Or similar wording but better composed. And let those above me scratch their heads.

Although some may argue "It was the intent that for any such award the member has to be over 18 years and this was an omission" based on the prerequisites for the other aero awards. Still, I would let them apply and have those above me sort it out.

[xray328]

Agreed.  Reminds me of the ABU debacle, the regs need to catch up.

Might be a stretch but AF UAV operators are ground based and wear wings, maybe we need a new set of wings for ground based operators.  Are the CAP drone guys wearing them?

[Eclipse]

Are the CAP drone guys wearing them?

CAP Drone guys?

[xray328]

Yeah, did you see the Drone (UAV) class at the Conference? They taught a handful of guys to fly them/it at a special session at NESA last year.

"CAP UAV Program – Emerging Technology
Presenter: Captain Gary Brown

Synopsis: Come see the new large CAP Drone/UAV, meet the Illinois Wing UAV team and learn all about how the CAP NHQ UAV Program is dramatically augmenting and enhancing our flight operations for Emergency Services. In this session, you'll learn the objectives of the new program, learn how to plan a photography mission, actually watch the drone fly the sortie (weather permitting), process the photos and see the stunning orthomosaic images that can be generated."

[Eclipse]

Well, the "wing Team" is people from one unit - ahead of the curve, which is great, but not much fire there (yet).

If CAP doesn't get this lit, it'll miss out on a train that's already well down the track as it is - maybe they will issue
wings to those operators.

[Alaric]

Well, the "wing Team" is people from one unit - ahead of the curve, which is great, but not much fire there (yet).

If CAP doesn't get this lit, it'll miss out on a train that's already well down the track as it is - maybe they will issue
wings to those operators.

NESA is having both a basic and advanced UAV school this year

[xray328]

Well, the "wing Team" is people from one unit - ahead of the curve, which is great, but not much fire there (yet).

If CAP doesn't get this lit, it'll miss out on a train that's already well down the track as it is - maybe they will issue
wings to those operators.

NESA is having both a basic and advanced UAV school this year

Really? Well that's the cats meow, where does one sign up?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Alaric]

Well, the "wing Team" is people from one unit - ahead of the curve, which is great, but not much fire there (yet).

If CAP doesn't get this lit, it'll miss out on a train that's already well down the track as it is - maybe they will issue
wings to those operators.

NESA is having both a basic and advanced UAV school this year

NESA

https://www.capnhq.gov/CAP.Events_NESA.Web/Default.aspx

Really? Well that's the cats meow, where does one sign up?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xray328]

Well, the "wing Team" is people from one unit - ahead of the curve, which is great, but not much fire there (yet).

If CAP doesn't get this lit, it'll miss out on a train that's already well down the track as it is - maybe they will issue
wings to those operators.

NESA is having both a basic and advanced UAV school this year

NESA

https://www.capnhq.gov/CAP.Events_NESA.Web/Default.aspx

Really? Well that's the cats meow, where does one sign up?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well there ya go.  The NESA site doesn't have any info on it yet though.  I'm guessing (based on what I saw at the IL Wing Conference) the basic class will teach you how to fly some sort of out of the box hobby level quadcopter.  Once you're proficient there you'll be eligible for the advanced class and be taught to fly to professional SAR UAV.

Interesting that it's under the ICSS.

[Blanding]

No, I specifically asked about cadets under 18.

OK, I know who you talked to, so I don't question this is happening,  but the whole thing is "odd".

How can they even release the flight with a cadet under 18 on board as part of crew? (or for anything other then a transport mission?)

Does this preclude the requirement that the PIC be an instructor pilot to carry cadets? (these aren't o-rides)

Why are these being done as C-Missions?  GIIEP training is clearly an AFAM normally, at minimum these should go as "B" unfunded.
Did someone do ORM math on under 18 cadets as part of aircrew and think doing it as a "C" un-regs the minimum 18 Year old requirement for all other A/C jobs?

This also conflicts with what the NESA / GIIEP website says (which doesn't necessarily mean much).

Does anyone have a copy of the secret-squirrel GIIEP SQTR?

Is there anyone from the MAS who can comment here?

Can you cite a requirement supporting the necessity for a pilot to be an instructor to fly a cadet under 18? I recognize the age of this thread, but it would seem important enough to not leave readers with the impression that this is true (unless... it is).

[Eclipse]

Can you cite a requirement supporting the necessity for a pilot to be an instructor to fly a cadet under 18? I recognize the age of this thread, but it would seem important enough to not leave readers with the impression that this is true (unless... it is).

It's more nuanced then I wrote earlier, and depends on the circumstance.

CAPR 60-1, Page 10.
https://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R060_001_132EEB0197465.pdf
f. Only pilots that are qualified as CAP instructors, cadet and ROTC/JROTC orientation
pilots, SAR/DR or transport mission pilots (during supervised missions) may carry CAP cadets
as passengers or crew members. At no time may a pilot who is a CAP cadet carry another CAP
cadet as a passenger or crew member.

[Blanding]

Can you cite a requirement supporting the necessity for a pilot to be an instructor to fly a cadet under 18? I recognize the age of this thread, but it would seem important enough to not leave readers with the impression that this is true (unless... it is).

It's more nuanced then I wrote earlier, and depends on the circumstance.

CAPR 60-1, Page 10.
https://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R060_001_132EEB0197465.pdf
f. Only pilots that are qualified as CAP instructors, cadet and ROTC/JROTC orientation
pilots, SAR/DR or transport mission pilots (during supervised missions) may carry CAP cadets
as passengers or crew members. At no time may a pilot who is a CAP cadet carry another CAP
cadet as a passenger or crew member.

Roger - so to clarify, you'd agree that a pilot who is a:

-Qualified CAP instructor or;
-Cadet orientation pilot or;
-Cadet ROTC/JROTC orientation pilot or;
-SAR/DR mission pilot or;
-Transport mission pilot (during supervised missions)

...may fly a sortie with a cadet on the manifest?

[SarDragon]

Absolutely.

[Jaison009]

 :clap: :clap: :clap:

Thanks Bob, kinda wanted the cadet to do the research. But they don't have to now since you did it for them.

For starters, this isn't a cadet asking the question.

Second, going into the new year I'm going to try to answer straight questions like this with straight answers.
We've tried it the other way for ten+ years, let's see where being helpful gets us.