Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 20, 2017, 09:10:39 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: Mission Staff Assistant a defacto requirement for Tech Rating in Safety?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [All] Print
Author Topic: Mission Staff Assistant a defacto requirement for Tech Rating in Safety?  (Read 1707 times)
arBar
Member

Posts: 81
Unit: SER-TN-014

Millington Composite Squadron
« on: February 22, 2017, 11:58:15 PM »

Has anyone else encountered this?

I can't get my Tech rating in Safety because e-services says I'm not a trainee status as a Mission Safety Officer (which is a requirement). However, I've completed half the requirements for MSO. One of the prerequisites I haven't done  is completing MSA, which I totally understand because it is foundational to most other mission staff positions. However, this technically makes being an MSA a requirement for a Tech rating in Safety.  This doesn't make any sense to me. 

Any thoughts?
Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,509

« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2017, 12:42:07 AM »

The Technician Safety Officer Checklist does not say you "Have to be in a trainee status as a Mission Safety Officer." Just that you have to "Begin training as an MSO" and "Date." Two different statements.

Who told you / where did you see you have to appear as a trainee status as an MSO? Seems someone is misreading CAPP 217, or does not have the most current copy. This is all I will say about this.

I am both a MSO and have the Senior Safety track. And earned my Technician Safety without being MSO-qualified. However I had to become MSO-qualified for my Senior Safety.

See http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P217_0B9C2E042F744.pdf attachment 1.

I have not covered the following on purpose, I thought it was important to clear that part first.

Quote

...technically makes being an MSA a requirement for a Tech rating in Safety...


Since you do not have to be in trainee status as an MSO, this part is invalidated...
« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 12:52:21 AM by Luis R. Ramos » Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,897

« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2017, 12:58:07 AM »

It's not "technically" a requirement, it's a requirement. As you allude, it's the most basic ICS qualification in CAP's playbook.

For those not otherwise qualified and indoctrinated in CAP's field and base operations, it sets up the baseline
of the IS-sessions, radio operations, collecting data and generally how to comport yourself in a mission environment.

It also insures that an MSO has been to at least two missions or operational periods before he start trying to keep other people safe.

If for some reason you can't hack it as an MSA, you sure don't belong as an MSO, which more than a minimum understanding of air ops,
ground ops, weather impact, fatigue, etc., etc.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

arBar
Member

Posts: 81
Unit: SER-TN-014

Millington Composite Squadron
« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2017, 01:18:24 AM »

Don't confuse the ES qualification with the PD Specialty Track rating, Eclipse.  As I said already, I perfectly understand the need to be an MSA before you can be an MSO. That's not in question. Having to be an MSA before you can be a Tech rating in Safety doesn't make sense.  I think this is an e-services issue.

What is in question, is that while the regulations simply say you must have started training as an MSO (and I've definitely done that...in fact I've completed 13 out of 26 requirements), e-services gives the following error when I am submitted for a tech rating [see pic].  E-services won't consider me to have started training until I meet the prerequisite MSA. 
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,897

« Reply #4 on: February 23, 2017, 01:32:57 AM »

That's not in question. Having to be an MSA before you can be a Tech rating in Safety doesn't make sense.  I think this is an e-services issue.

No, it's correct.  eServices is cross-checking the mandate.  Over the last couple of years, a number of PD specialties have added
ES to their requirements to "decompartmentalize" members who don't partake of all the missions.  This has been done as the pamphlets are updated.
PAO being another one.

Simply put, NHQ wants safety officers with ES experience.

What is in question, is that while the regulations simply say you must have started training as an MSO (and I've definitely done that...in fact I've completed 13 out of 26 requirements), e-services gives the following error when I am submitted for a tech rating [see pic].  E-services won't consider me to have started training until I meet the prerequisite MSA.

You can't "start the training" as an MSO until you have met the pre-requisites, one of which is MSA, and your trainee status
has been approved by your CC.

Even if you have completed some random MSO tasks, that's not considered "trainee status", and you could not sign into a mission as an MSO-T.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 01:36:12 AM by Eclipse » Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,509

« Reply #5 on: February 23, 2017, 01:12:42 PM »

If you do not mind me adding this. I have come to the conclusion that MSA should be the first ES qual to get since it will assure that person will be doing something when on a mission or SAREX.

Ever since I became Emergency Services Officer I try to groom members to attain MSA first. Even if they tell me they only want to be GTM or UDF, I evaluate them for MSA and try to conduct them to that qualification.

This is the approach I followed, and probably it was why I did not encounter what the OP did. When I went for my MSO, I was already MSA qual.
Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
Spaceman3750
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,605

« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2017, 01:33:53 PM »

If you do not mind me adding this. I have come to the conclusion that MSA should be the first ES qual to get since it will assure that person will be doing something when on a mission or SAREX.

Ever since I became Emergency Services Officer I try to groom members to attain MSA first. Even if they tell me they only want to be GTM or UDF, I evaluate them for MSA and try to conduct them to that qualification.

This is the approach I followed, and probably it was why I did not encounter what the OP did. When I went for my MSO, I was already MSA qual.

To be fair, it takes all of 5 minutes to turn on someone's MSA trainee status when they actually need it, rather than forcing them through a qual they don't presently want "just in case".

Not to say we don't need more MSAs and MROs in the world, we definitely do, but I'm not super kosher with diverting someone from what they want to be doing in a volunteer organization that is hemorrhaging members.
Logged
The moment any commander or staff member considers themselves a gatekeeper, instead of a facilitator, they have failed at their job.
I can't fix all of CAP's problems, but I can lead from the bottom by building my squadron as a center of excellence to serve as an example of what every unit can be.
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,897

« Reply #7 on: February 23, 2017, 01:42:28 PM »

I have always been an advocate, and pretty much set the expectation, that everyone, cadet and senior, should
be UDF and MSA qual'ed, at least once.

There is little to no equipment cost and it invests the member in a real-world mission capability and exposes them
to what is arguably 50% of CAP actual mission, namely ES.

Time and practicality get in the way of that goal, but even when we can't make it, it's part of therehtoric of annual goals
and expectations and discussed with new members during the "This is CAP." discussions.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,509

« Reply #8 on: February 23, 2017, 01:58:56 PM »

You do not have to "turn off someone from a [preferred] qual..." It can be done concurrently. There are many common tasks. And before you can get even near to the two required missions.

If you strictly follow CAP regs, if your new fellow cadet wants to attend a CAP mission, he has to have GES, Curry, OPSEC. This new cadet wants to become GTM or UDF, he can attend a TRAEX with that but he is not supposed to do anything. Not even go out in a sortie. Urge him to watch NESA MSA powerpoint at his convenience then evaluate him, when he goes to that TRAEX in an MSA(T) status he will be able to update boards, create logs which is more than if he / she attended the TRAEX with no GTM or UDF trainee status. There are common tasks between UDF(T), GTM3(T), and MSA(T).

I feel it takes more time to prepare a GTM(T) or UDF(T) than an MSA(T).

I have been in some TRAEX where CULs have allowed MSA(T) cadets to start taking logs then after two hours to operate the radios in a supervised manner, and being told they did an excellent job. Again, several tasks are applicable as well to MRO and UDF / GTM. Not many, but several. And others that can be done as well that can be done on their own, IS and ICUT.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 02:18:22 PM by Luis R. Ramos » Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
Spaceman3750
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,605

« Reply #9 on: February 23, 2017, 02:41:55 PM »

You do not have to "turn off someone from a [preferred] qual..." It can be done concurrently. There are many common tasks. And before you can get even near to the two required missions.

Sure, but you can't be on a ground team and be helping at the ICP at the same time. That's two days, or missions, or operational periods (or whatever your wing evaluates an ICP "sortie" as) that they're not doing what they want to be doing, and are instead doing something else. Which delays what they want to be doing by anywhere from a few weeks to several months depending on the availability of exercises and their schedule.

We can't always get what we want, but we all joined for a reason. If we don't let our people chase their cheese, then we won't have them very long anyways. I'm not saying "don't do MSA", I'm saying let people pursue what they want to do first, then fill in the blanks.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 02:45:21 PM by Spaceman3750 » Logged
The moment any commander or staff member considers themselves a gatekeeper, instead of a facilitator, they have failed at their job.
I can't fix all of CAP's problems, but I can lead from the bottom by building my squadron as a center of excellence to serve as an example of what every unit can be.
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,509

« Reply #10 on: February 23, 2017, 03:09:09 PM »

If there are about 45 or 50 GTM trainees and only 2 or 3 GTL members not all of those wishing to go as GTM will be able to go either. Or only two vans. So what you are advocating is that some be left at base, and leave without a sortie, not able to do any training.

We cannot have all we wish every time.
Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
Spaceman3750
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,605

« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2017, 03:24:56 PM »

If there are about 45 or 50 GTM trainees and only 2 or 3 GTL members not all of those wishing to go as GTM will be able to go either. Or only two vans. So what you are advocating is that some be left at base, and leave without a sortie, not able to do any training.

We cannot have all we wish every time.

... it takes all of 5 minutes to turn on someone's MSA trainee status when they actually need it, rather than forcing them through a qual they don't presently want "just in case".
Logged
The moment any commander or staff member considers themselves a gatekeeper, instead of a facilitator, they have failed at their job.
I can't fix all of CAP's problems, but I can lead from the bottom by building my squadron as a center of excellence to serve as an example of what every unit can be.
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,509

« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2017, 03:59:45 PM »

So you are telling me is that I have wasted all 15 years preparing personnel for an alternate task... That they will get there for a UDF or GTM3 trainee...

Only to disappoint them when they find out they cannot do what they wanted to do, instead of preparing them mentally for the possibility they may have to do something else.

Fine way to think about your members needs.
Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,897

« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2017, 04:12:13 PM »

... it takes all of 5 minutes to turn on someone's MSA trainee status when they actually need it, rather than forcing them through a qual they don't presently want "just in case".

True enough, but "when they need it" isn't the time to be approving trainee status or discussing the expectations of a given ICS role.

Both should be happening outside a mission environment, training or otherwise - can't tell you how many times I've had to stop
a complex train of thought and let all the balls in the air hit the floor because somebody couldn't be bothered to get quals or status
approved before noon on game day and "Well they just showed up and want to help..."

And of course can you can multiple jobs during a given day, AM air sortie, mid-morning GT sortie, and then sit in the Comm section
after lunch, you don't necessarily need to get sortie credit, especially for a base-ops jobs, but you do need to be qual'ed to be signed in,
and as mentioned, "What you want to do." isn't always available, and then it's "What the mission needs, or here's you go-home sortie number".
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Spaceman3750
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,605

« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2017, 04:31:15 PM »

So you are telling me is that I have wasted all 15 years preparing personnel for an alternate task... That they will get there for a UDF or GTM3 trainee...

Only to disappoint them when they find out they cannot do what they wanted to do, instead of preparing them mentally for the possibility they may have to do something else.

Fine way to think about your members needs.

I think your area and mine have different problems here. You apparently have too many people to train. I have billets to fill and nobody to fill them.

Do you guys not run small-scale task-focused training? We've seen some success facilitating lots of local training tailored to the training needs of the participants.
Logged
The moment any commander or staff member considers themselves a gatekeeper, instead of a facilitator, they have failed at their job.
I can't fix all of CAP's problems, but I can lead from the bottom by building my squadron as a center of excellence to serve as an example of what every unit can be.
MacGruff
Seasoned Member

Posts: 298

« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2017, 05:51:50 PM »

Back to the original question, I have a member who is working on getting his TECH in safety who ran in to the exact same roadblock. In our case, we recently had a SAREX which he attended for the precise reason of getting his MSA signed off. There were multiple missions involved, so getting the two exercises was not an issue. Following the event, he put everything in to e-services and it was all approved and his MSA is now signed off.

Given this discussion, I went to look up his records. He has completed all his MSO Familiarization and Preparatory Training and his Commander sign-off. In the Advanced Training section, he has 8 of the 13 lines signed off. However, because he does NOT have the other five signed off, he is NOT listed as an MSO Trainee!

Therefore, I cannot award him the TECH in Safety....

He, like you, will have to complete all the Advanced Trainings, and get another signoff before he becomes an MSO Trainee, and only then will I be able to give him TECH in Safety. Please note that some of the things he has not completed are ICS 300 and 400 which are difficult to get in our area...  :-(

Logged
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 915
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #16 on: February 23, 2017, 06:12:26 PM »

There's nothing wrong with planning, funding, scheduling and executing an exercise (AFAM or un-numbered) which is focused only on advanced specialties such as GTL, or even as a CPX (Command Post Exercise, or "paper mission") which is focused only-and-I-mean-only on the exercise and qualification of senior mission staff.

In fact, actual DoD elements conduct CPX command post exercises (FEMA calls them "drills") all the time, without field troops or aircraft. They're a good idea, where needed to improve leadership proficiency, to game out and practice an actual major SAREX/DREX the month before its execution (i.e. a rehearsal), or to develop new senior staff as needed to address a leadership deficiency. Note, you don't fully qualify people without observing them demonstrate the tasks which involve proving their ability to manage troops and teams in the field and in the air, but having some breathing room to practice as leader trainees (without embarrassment, with the benefit of having peer trainees asking questions under the tutelage of very senior trainers) can be a great enhancement to training.

If you have 50 follower trainees and only two leaders, OR, if you have many newbies and no leaders, then perhaps an analysis and a strategic training plan might be worth considering?

V/r
Spam

Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,509

« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2017, 06:50:42 PM »

Spam, that is great to pursue if you have a squadron with that many personnel wanting to train in a particular specialty or if you are at a Group or Wing level ES function, and you know there will be that many showing up.

All the squadrons I have been, there would be no more than 25 members, and not that many are at the same level in ES training.

Great ideas. Will keep them in mind.
Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 915
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #18 on: February 23, 2017, 07:02:10 PM »

I was the GBD for an AFAM (training) last month with a few dozen trainees. I sat up the night before on WMIRS, running a spreadsheet on quals and SQTR modules, and the next AM had a game plan to balance it all out. Yep, sometimes you go big, sometimes you go small. Regardless, keeping an eye on your trainee cohorts progress is a good thing.

However, I will comment that showing up expecting to train in your chosen area of interest, and being steered into MSA support staff work (however valuable) would be a reason for me to quit, right off the bat.

V/r,
Spam
Logged
gcreager
Recruit

Posts: 10
Unit: SWR-OK-074

« Reply #19 on: February 25, 2017, 12:39:10 AM »

I've been trying to improve comms training (not "just" MRO, but actually the why and how behind what we do), and I can't get CC buy-in to get the cadets in for even some of my classes. I've got a couple of interested and promising cadets, but getting them actually ready to go past MRO and pursue Communications PD is difficult.

But, the original question was on MSA. I've never, exactly, done missions as an MSA trainee. What I have done was design, plan, and participate in communications for our OPEXs and OPEVALS for the last 5 years. Somehow, MSA was signed off. There's little doubt that at one time or another, I've performed all the tasks, but a solid and astute IC or evaluator can keep track of this and make note of things for the trainee. In point of fact, I had 2 cadets this last time working on completing MRO. Neither paperwork with 'em but both got credited with appropriate tasks and mission participation. Because I was on top of things, and because they accomplished the tasks they needed to accomplish.

At some point, I hope to have sufficient CULs and MROs actually qualified and comfortable with their jobs that I can complete GTM3, start on GTL, and, oh, year, get back in an airplane!
Logged
G. Creager 1st Lt CAP
Comms Officer SWR-OK-074
Pilot (PP-ASEL-IA)
N5JXS
Supercomputer geek
stillamarine
400,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 792
Unit: SER-AL-134

« Reply #20 on: February 26, 2017, 01:01:13 PM »

I happened to look at some SQTRs this week because of an upcoming SAREX. I always thought MSA or MRO were requirements for any other mission base billets. I apparently was wrong. You can go AOBD or GBD, PSC, OSC then IC without having MSA. Yet some smaller requirements (PIO, LO) requires it.
Logged
Tim Gardiner, 1st LT, CAP

USMC AD 1996-2001
USMCR    2001-2005  Admiral, Great State of Nebraska Navy  MS, MO, UDF
tim.gardiner@gmail.com
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,897

« Reply #21 on: February 26, 2017, 01:23:14 PM »

Has anyone else encountered this?

I can't get my Tech rating in Safety because e-services says I'm not a trainee status as a Mission Safety Officer (which is a requirement).

No, it actually isn't, at least not in terms of the actual verbiage of the Pamphlet.
Every time I saw this thread something didn't ring true and I finally had a moment to read it.

CAPP 217, Page 8
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P217_0B9C2E042F744.pdf

"SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
1. Complete a minimum 6-month internship as a unit safety officer or assistant safety officer.
2. Conduct at a minimum six safety briefings/meetings for the unit IAW CAPR 62-1.
3. Complete a Mishap Entry with all appropriate information (this may be entered as a “test entry” if no mishap has occurred).
4. Complete at least one eServices Improvement Suggestion/Hazard Report Entry (this may be entered as a “test entry” if no identifiable hazard exists).
5. Completion of the technician level requirements must be evaluated and certified using Attachment 1, Safety Officer Technician Level Checklist, by a senior or master
rated safety officer and processed in accordance with CAPR 50-17.
6. Qualify in General Emergency Services (GES).
7. Successfully complete Initial Communications User Training (I-CUT).
8. Begin training as a Mission Safety Officer (MSO)."


Note, it does not say "Trainee Status", it says "begin training", versus the verbiage for Senior which says:

"6. Become a qualified Mission Safety Officer."

Approval of any specialty track is at the subjective authority of the respective Unit Commander, in this case in concert
with a "Senior or Master-rated" Safety Officer.

"Begin training" is as simple as "Yes, I'm working with Maj Simpson our ESO on the requirements, one of which will be MSA",
and Capt Rowe is helping me with what I need to know for the tasks".

"GES" is objective, "Icut" is objective, "begin training" isn't.

MSA is required for MSO, it's required for a Senior in Safety, it's not required for Technician.

>>>>Luis R. Ramos was actually correct all along, and I'd question if there is actually an issue clicking this off in eServices.
>>>>If I could edit my posts above I would.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2017, 01:29:01 PM by Eclipse » Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

MacGruff
Seasoned Member

Posts: 298

« Reply #22 on: February 26, 2017, 06:43:06 PM »

Eclipse - Your research is correct.

The situation in e-services is that it is required that you be listed as a TRAINEE as an MSO before it will let the PDO give you the TECHNICIAN rating in safety. Maybe that's a mistake in e-services, but that's how it is currently coded. Or, maybe the way "begin training" is being interpreted is to mean actually being in Trainee status?

If you look above, I have someone in my squadron who has the exact same situation as the opening post...

Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,897

« Reply #23 on: February 26, 2017, 07:47:41 PM »

Time for a Help Desk ticket, or a regulation change / clarification.

Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

arajca
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,146

« Reply #24 on: February 26, 2017, 11:07:07 PM »

Eclipse - Your research is correct.

The situation in e-services is that it is required that you be listed as a TRAINEE as an MSO before it will let the PDO give you the TECHNICIAN rating in safety. Maybe that's a mistake in e-services, but that's how it is currently coded. Or, maybe the way "begin training" is being interpreted is to mean actually being in Trainee status?

If you look above, I have someone in my squadron who has the exact same situation as the opening post...
Playing Devil's Advocate - If a member is not a MSO Trainee in Eservices, how does eServices know the member is in training to be an MSO?
Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,509

« Reply #25 on: February 26, 2017, 11:38:34 PM »

Why should eServices need to reflect that?

Take for instance Technician ES checklist. It states that the member must be "one year qualified in any ES specialty."

Yet a PDO awards the Tech rating without any meddling from eServices checking whether that person really has that qualification. Should it? Maybe. But this is another completely different issue.

Likewise the PDO should be able to award that Tech rating without eServices checking whether that member is an MSO trainee. Should it? Maybe. But again this is another different issue that must be stated in the CAP regs. The checklist says only "should be in training." The checklist and regs do not say "should be a trainee."


« Last Edit: February 26, 2017, 11:42:34 PM by Luis R. Ramos » Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,897

« Reply #26 on: February 26, 2017, 11:45:47 PM »

Playing Devil's Advocate - If a member is not a MSO Trainee in Eservices, how does eServices know the member is in training to be an MSO?

It doesn't, and shouldn't because "MSO Trainee", per se is not a requirement.

The presumption here is that the PDO module isn't allowing the appointment, all other things being equal, but this is hard to confirm
because there is no way to test it.

If the OP is "being told that", then a clarification to the teller is in order.  If the system is locking out
the appointment, then a Help Desk ticket is in order.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,509

« Reply #27 on: February 26, 2017, 11:50:32 PM »

I sent a request to the Help Desk for clarification and checking that assumption. I will post what they say.
Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,809

« Reply #28 on: February 27, 2017, 08:58:11 AM »

Playing Devil's Advocate - If a member is not a MSO Trainee in Eservices, how does eServices know the member is in training to be an MSO?

It doesn't, and shouldn't because "MSO Trainee", per se is not a requirement.

The presumption here is that the PDO module isn't allowing the appointment, all other things being equal, but this is hard to confirm
because there is no way to test it.

If the OP is "being told that", then a clarification to the teller is in order.  If the system is locking out
the appointment, then a Help Desk ticket is in order.

But isn't it? If you are "in training", are you not a "trainee"? I grok that the language chosen is less than perfect but this seems like one of those areas that should follow the definitions of words.
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,509

« Reply #29 on: February 27, 2017, 09:24:05 AM »

Then NHQ should change another part of that regulation to reflect such use.
Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,075
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #30 on: March 01, 2017, 11:38:36 AM »

I happened to look at some SQTRs this week because of an upcoming SAREX. I always thought MSA or MRO were requirements for any other mission base billets. I apparently was wrong. You can go AOBD or GBD, PSC, OSC then IC without having MSA. Yet some smaller requirements (PIO, LO) requires it.


Just an FYI, this post is: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=21875.msg400000#msg400000

Congratulations, Mr 400,000th Post Author
Logged
stillamarine
400,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 792
Unit: SER-AL-134

« Reply #31 on: March 01, 2017, 12:20:00 PM »

I happened to look at some SQTRs this week because of an upcoming SAREX. I always thought MSA or MRO were requirements for any other mission base billets. I apparently was wrong. You can go AOBD or GBD, PSC, OSC then IC without having MSA. Yet some smaller requirements (PIO, LO) requires it.


Just an FYI, this post is: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=21875.msg400000#msg400000

Congratulations, Mr 400,000th Post Author

Where's my cookie??  >:D
Logged
Tim Gardiner, 1st LT, CAP

USMC AD 1996-2001
USMCR    2001-2005  Admiral, Great State of Nebraska Navy  MS, MO, UDF
tim.gardiner@gmail.com
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,075
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #32 on: March 01, 2017, 12:40:09 PM »

Ask one of the mods/admins to add it to your title. :0
Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,017
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #33 on: March 02, 2017, 04:46:58 AM »

Ask one of the mods/admins to add it to your title. :0

Admin action. Notification sent.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Pages: 1 2 [All] Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: Mission Staff Assistant a defacto requirement for Tech Rating in Safety?
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.468 seconds with 21 queries.
click here to email me