Linking Professional Development to ES qualifications

[RiverAux]

I think that I'm on pretty firm ground when I say that most senior members join CAP to participate in the ES program.  Yes, there are a tiny dedicated minority of members who focus on cadet programs and that 1 guy in each wing that is a gung-ho AE person. 

Since ES is where most seniors want to go, I think that we could increase participation in the professional development program by linking it to specific ES qualifications.  The higher your PD level, the most ES positions are open to you. 

Those seniors who just want to do AE/Cadets don't have to go through the PD unless they want to, but most seniors would have a strong incentive to participate in PD. 

How would it work?  Well, I don't think we need to match up all ES positions with a PD level, just place them in the ES system where they would do the most good. 
For example:

Observer/Mission Pilot/Ground Team Leader -- Must complete Level II (SLS/Tech rating/ECI 13).   People in these positions are expected to be able to exert leadership over small groups and the training provided by the Level II program should aid in that. 

Planning Section Chief -- Must complete Level III At this level and above you are responsible for leading 50-100 or more people during a mission which requires a significant amount of organizational capability.  The Level III training should provide that. 

Now, I am going to wimp out and would not propose requiring Level IV for any of the higher jobs primarily because it requires you to attend RSC, which is not available in most states, though there are some alternatives which are not entirely satisfactory to me.

So, my proposal would basically result in a strong majority of officers having at least completed Level II and wilth all upper level mission staff completing Level III (and therefore being Majors). 

By making sure almost everybody completes Level II it would somewhat ease any problems associated with special appointments up to the Captain level -- they mayget those bars right away, but won't get to do anything fun until they complete what everyone else has done to earn them. 

Also, it may help our ES performance by actually requiring members to complete at least some leadership training before taking on leadership roles in sometimes dangerous, and often difficult situations. 

So, using this method we have provided a strong encouragement to get people involved in PD without beating them over the head or kicking them out.  It won't help us get more people into Levels IV or V, but I'm not too worried about that.

[Fireball]

     You know, now that I think about it, the fact that the ES training itself does not have much leadership development in it has kind of been nagging me. I just couldn't put my finger on it. I believe your proposal has merit in developing a more professional force.

[lordmonar]

I would agree if CAP PD program was worth anything for developing small unit leadership....but as it is....it just is not up to the task.

You also have to address the non-ES specialty track required for PD progression.

Also the Planning Section Cheif is not leading 50-100 people....but only 5 or so.

ICS span of control and all that. 

[RiverAux]

The CAP PD program is not specifically focused on small unit leadership, but leadership in general.  Is it the best training out there?  No.  Should it be improved? Yes.  But, in the meantime it does have some value in this area. 

With most PD tracks you do actually have to demonstrate some skills in order to complete it and move up.  I don't think it is important that most of the tracks don't relate to ES. 

PSC isn't leading 50-100 people, but he/she is an integral part in figuring out what they are going to be doing and this requires a high level of organizational skill that should be at least somewhat developed by someone completing Level III in the PD program. 

[Eclipse]

Disagree, spin again.   

[DNall]

I would agree if CAP PD program was worth anything for developing small unit leadership....but as it is....it just is not up to the task.

You also have to address the non-ES specialty track required for PD progression.

Also the Planning Section Cheif is not leading 50-100 people....but only 5 or so.

ICS span of control and all that. 

I agree with this, but I also tend to agree with river as well.

The idea has some real merit. If you limit advanced ES positions by PD level, then grade starts being more practical in the operational sense. That clears up some confusion, or at least some of the complaints I've heard around here.

However, I'm completely with lordmanor here as well. Our PD program is woefully inadequate. It doesn't take people with no skills & give them the leadership/mgmt skills they need to be successful at each progressive level. That's always been an issue in ES, and in local units or CAP in general. The program needs a whole whole lot of work, then I'm with you on connecting it to some positions, both ES & organizationally, because then you're talking about having the skills for the job & not some checklist BS from sitting thru a few boring weekends.

Far as that span of control comment, it's not the number of people, but the combination of people, resources, & importance of the task that are ultimately effected down chain by your decisions.

[RiverAux]

Have you looked at SLS and CLC lately?  They have made a real attempt to focus these classes on developing leadership skills rather than just knowing what each staff officer does.   Could it be even better?  Sure, but it is not worthless. 

As Voltaire said, "The perfect is the enemy of the good".  Accept the fact that we're not going to see any more major changes in the CAP PD program for a while considering what we've just done.  Lets work with what we have rather than waiting for CAP to develop some 160 hour basic officer course. 

[Short Field]

You are trying to compare apples and oranges.  I think the ICS training will do more to improve ES qualifications in the long run than PD. 

I like the PD program but it only takes three days (and in some wings only two days) to complete both SLS and CLC.  Each course tends to only run 1 1/2 days each and are taught in some places as a one eight hour day. 

It took five days to complete ICS 300 and ICS 400 - and it was all focused on conducting operations.  Add in the five day National SAR Planners course and you start to get some real training.  Then add a requirement that to be signed off as fully qualified on a position - you have to work two missions (operational periods) as "the person in charge" in that position and be evaluated - not just a trainee going through the motions.  That would up it to four missions for a sign-off.

As for leadership training, nothing in the current SLS or CLC is going to produce a leader.  It will give some people a clue as to what they don't know or help other people learn some techniques, but both courses are way too light and too short to have a major impact on the participants.   

CAP's best hope for leadership training is to have the senior leaders (however you want to define them - Sqdn level or above) mentor less senior people and develop them.  This takes time and there is no quick fix.  The EZ button is only on TV.

[DNall]

Have you looked at SLS and CLC lately?  They have made a real attempt to focus these classes on developing leadership skills rather than just knowing what each staff officer does.   Could it be even better?  Sure, but it is not worthless. 

As Voltaire said, "The perfect is the enemy of the good".  Accept the fact that we're not going to see any more major changes in the CAP PD program for a while considering what we've just done.  Lets work with what we have rather than waiting for CAP to develop some 160 hour basic officer course. 

Yes I have looked at it & it's a joke bud. I appreciate the effort, but they're not taking raw clay & making real world leaders. The education level reached by the end of RSC is not equiv to any military commissioning source (minus the tactical & PT aspects).

We're simply not making leaders in any way shape or form. What we're doing is the same thing we do with pilots. We don't have a pilot training program, we depend on recruiting people with that skill to come in & share it with us at their expense. Ok, that makes sense for something like pilot training that's massively expensive. It doesn't make sense for leader/manage development which the military is the absolute world leader at & frankly is not expensive to deliver to at least select members. Also, we have enough competent pilots, while we're insanely short of trained leaders at each progressive level from GTL/MP to IC to DCC/Sq CC all the way to Nat CC.

You are trying to compare apples and oranges.  I think the ICS training will do more to improve ES qualifications in the long run than PD. 

That's tactical operating procedures stuff, not leadership.

When a first responder agency sends a deputy chief to some courses so they can certify as say an OSC, it's not the courses that make them competent & capable to serve in that role. They didn't become deputy chief by taking some course & hanging around a while.  Kind of the same thing with military officers or NCOs. There's extensive education & TIS sure, but there's also boards/interviews & merit based promotions to the leadership position that puts them in the place where they're the person that needs this training.

What i mean is, yes, we do need to do the NIMS compliance stuff full bore. However, that will help make competent or at least qualified tactical level operators. It doesn't make leaders. It certainly doesn't ensure the people in leadership roles are trained or competent as leaders by any standards, much less standards that stack up against the agencies/mil we deal with operationally, or would like to anyway. If we want to step up to the plate, we need to bring a team that can play on that level. Not show up with little league versus the Yankees and complain we can't get in the game.

[Larry Mangum]

Linking professional development to ES is not a bad idea, however I have to agree with those who believe that CAP does not train leaders. 

While we have a very structured program to teach cadets how to be leaders, we flat out don't teach seniors how to be leaders.  It is assumed rather wrongly, that the adults who join CAP are already trained in leadership and just need to be taught about CAP and the duties of various positions.  We all now that that assumption in most cases is fault.

Now on to the discussion at hand, in my humble opinion, there is very little correlation between ES and the materials taught in SLS, CLC, UCC, TLC or even RSC.  I have attended or taught at all of those schools. On the other hand, I have attend the SMC, Inland SAR, ICS 300, ICS 400 and the majority of the other ICS course required to be an IC and can definitely state that the majority of those course should be required courses for anyone who plans on progressing in ES and serving as mission staff.  Some will or are already mandated for progression in the ES specialty ratings, others like SMC and Inland SAR should be mandatory for those wishing to be command or general staff in ES.

Probably what we should be discussing is, wither with all the new requirements if it is even possible to not only become truly qualified as a command or general staff officer under ICS and to wither it is truly possible to stay current and  qualified with the time commitment it now takes and the funds it takes as well.  CAP training budgets are getting smaller not larger and while it does not take a lot of funds to run table top exercises, unless we conduct exercises with the organizations we are going to support, and prove we can function under ICS and as a team player, we will not be utilized by the very organization that we can act as a force multiplier for.

[capchiro]

I have mixed feelings on this as mission pilots and observers have plenty of hoops to jump through to get qualified already and i doubt if there are many mission pilots that want to earn their tech rating as PAO, plus wait for an SLS and wait to get and complete their ECI13.  It just doesn't seem practical from that viewpoint, plus most pilots, observers aren't leading anything, unless they want to be more active and take on a bigger role.  I suggest we quit trying to add to the requirements that are already their and just try to make it possible to accomplish the ones in place.  It can quite easily take a new member a year or more to become observer qualified depending upon the training offered in their local/wing at this time.  Why add more to the plate??

[Short Field]

Yes I have looked at it & it's a joke bud. I appreciate the effort, but they're not taking raw clay & making real world leaders. The education level reached by the end of RSC is not equiv to any military commissioning source (minus the tactical & PT aspects).

There is no CAP program that is going to ever equal a commissioning source.   Most CAP members do not have the time and money to devote to a real leadership training program. 

CAP will always have to work with what walks in the door - that is what volunteer organizations do.  We can provide a place for people to further develop their leadership skills and self-confidence.  But linking PD to ES quals does nothing to improve our ES capability.

[FW]

I know I'm walking on thin ice here but, I think ES and PD are linked already.
My thought is; given a specialty track in operations, or communications etc, PD achievement advances do require advancement in the specialty.  The requirements are specific and separate from the leadership component of PD.  We can improve the relationship but, I think this is still the best way to go. 

I agree leadership training however, IMHO, still needs improvement.  I've been to every leadership development program in CAP from my first days as a C/B to NSC.
I've also attended the Army's Officer Basic and Advanced Courses and completed the  AF SOS correspondence course.  To me, they pretty much all said the same thing about leadership.  And no matter what rebuttal anyone can think of, I learned more about leadership from my "mentors" than in any class room environment.  Of course, falling on my butt a few times helps the learning process quite a bit.  Nothing trains better than real time experience.  We need to identify our best leaders and plead with them, yes plead, to be mentors to our new guys. They can give us continued guidance and help us improve in all things CAP. 
That is the hardest part of PD; finding the help and be willing to absorb it.

[RiverAux]

But linking PD to ES quals does nothing to improve our ES capability.

The primary reason I proposed this was not to improve our ES capacity, but to improve participation in the PD program.  Any benefits to the ES program are secondary. 

[DNall]

there is very little correlation between ES and the materials taught in SLS, CLC, UCC, TLC or even RSC.  I have attended or taught at all of those schools. On the other hand, I have attend the SMC, Inland SAR, ICS 300, ICS 400 and the majority of the other ICS course required to be an IC and can definitely state that the majority of those course should be required courses for anyone who plans on progressing in ES and serving as mission staff.

That's technical training in a tactical skill set. Obviously you need to know the work. Being competent doesn't accomplish the mission. Taking that technical skill & pairing it with leadership/mgmt skills then delivering it on your peers/superiors/subordinates is what accomplishes a task. I would agree with you that we need to do more in terms of technical training within ES. That's still completely useless without the other part of the equation though. It might be fine dealing with CAP, but that won't play in the multi-agency world, including with the AF - which speaks to your other comments, which I also tend to agree with.

There is no CAP program that is going to ever equal a commissioning source.   Most CAP members do not have the time and money to devote to a real leadership training program. 

CAP will always have to work with what walks in the door - that is what volunteer organizations do.  We can provide a place for people to further develop their leadership skills and self-confidence.  But linking PD to ES quals does nothing to improve our ES capability.

Are we that helpless, and have that little faith in our members?

The National Guard does a very good job in a program that doesn't take any more time than a CAP member puts in per year. ACA does a pretty good job. How is that significantly different than CAP? There's a few dozen superb leadership/management development programs in the non-profit & business world that are absolutely top notch.

I'm tired of bringing people in here & taking from them - taking their money, their time, their dedication. I'm tired of CAP not performing even close to its potential because we don't have enough capable people to make that happen. We have plenty of great people with great hearts, plenty of smart capable people, but we're not doing anything to take that raw material & turn it into what we need. I'd like to be able to give something back to our members. I'd like them to be able to turn CAP into what it could be for one thing, but I'd also like them to benefit in their civilian lives from the leadership development they get here, in the same way that military leaders do when they take their leadership to the marketplace.

We can do that. It doesn't take any more time than we're already spending. It doesn't take millions of dollars from the govt or hundreds from a member. It just takes the will to make it happen.

I know I'm walking on thin ice here but, I think ES and PD are linked already.
My thought is; given a specialty track in operations, or communications etc, PD achievement advances do require advancement in the specialty.  The requirements are specific and separate from the leadership component of PD.  We can improve the relationship but, I think this is still the best way to go. 

You got that backwards. In order to progress within a couple specific specialty tracks you must also progress within aspects of ES. It doesn't follow that in order to progress in ES you must progress within any specialty track, much less any PD course.

I agree leadership training however, IMHO, still needs improvement.  I've been to every leadership development program in CAP from my first days as a C/B to NSC.
I've also attended the Army's Officer Basic and Advanced Courses and completed the  AF SOS correspondence course.  To me, they pretty much all said the same thing about leadership.  And no matter what rebuttal anyone can think of, I learned more about leadership from my "mentors" than in any class room environment.  Of course, falling on my butt a few times helps the learning process quite a bit.  Nothing trains better than real time experience.  We need to identify our best leaders and plead with them, yes plead, to be mentors to our new guys. They can give us continued guidance and help us improve in all things CAP. 

Of course quality mentors are critical in any development process, as are the instructors in a classroom environment.

Now, just humor me here as a leadership problem... what if I give you a scenario where we have this organization of dedicated people, and we can deliver them training, but we don't have adequate mentors to place them with. We have a bunch of airman with no officer or NCOs & we need a total force - a lot like the process we're going through building up the Afghan and to a lesser extent the Iraqi Armies right now. I'm open minded, tell me how you solve that.

[Short Field]

The National Guard does a very good job in a program that doesn't take any more time than a CAP member puts in per year. ACA does a pretty good job. How is that significantly different than CAP? There's a few dozen superb leadership/management development programs in the non-profit & business world that are absolutely top notch.

We are discussing linking Professional Development to ES qualifications. 

What other programs (as refered to above) are you talking about and how many hours over what time frame are committed to the programs?    If you attended every meeting of my last squadron, from start to finish, for a year - you would have committed a grand total of 24 hours to CAP.    The National Guard doesn't take any more time than that?

[Short Field]

[

I know I'm walking on thin ice here but, I think ES and PD are linked already.
My thought is; given a specialty track in operations, or communications etc, PD achievement advances do require advancement in the specialty.  The requirements are specific and separate from the leadership component of PD.  We can improve the relationship but, I think this is still the best way to go. 

You got that backwards. In order to progress within a couple specific specialty tracks you must also progress within aspects of ES.

Which tracks and what is the link to ES Ops Quals?  Sources please.  The closest specific requirement I have found is the Master rating in the ES track requires completion of the National SAR Planners Course.  It does not require any specific achievement in ES - just a ES qualification.  MSA counts - maybe even just GES - put no requirement to progress in ES - just hold an ES qualification.

[ZigZag911]

While the details need to be smoothed out, I like the idea of linking ES quals to the middle levels of PD....it will guarantee that all our folks have at least some leadership training. It will also ensure that there is some standardization in that training.

[SarDragon]

Which tracks and what is the link to ES Ops Quals?  Sources please.  The closest specific requirement I have found is the Master rating in the ES track requires completion of the National SAR Planners Course.  It does not require any specific achievement in ES - just a ES qualification.  MSA counts - maybe even just GES - put no requirement to progress in ES - just hold an ES qualification.

According to the CAPP 200 series pubs I D/L'd 3/28/08, the only ES requirements for any PD rating are for Emergency Services, 213. The Tech rating requires GES, and be continuously qualified in an ES specialty for one year. Senior and Master ratings require longer periods of qualification (3 yrs, and 5 yrs, respectively).

[lordmonar]

But linking PD to ES quals does nothing to improve our ES capability.

The primary reason I proposed this was not to improve our ES capacity, but to improve participation in the PD program.  Any benefits to the ES program are secondary. 

Then let's not do it.

MISSION!

Let's keep an eye on our mission.

We do not do PD for PD's sake but to ensure (in theory) that we have competent officers to do the MISSION.

[FW]

I think a better question is: How do we improve the rise through ES qualifications as professional volunteers?  As we progress from GES to IC, maybe we should insure some "Professional Development".  During Katrina, there seemed to be a breakdown in many facets of the system; both ICS and our own command structure. Did we improve during the Fositt mission?  Are we learning and developing better ways to perform?  It may be a very good idea to insure our ES leaders/managers have the management and leadership skills necessary to be successful.  IMHO, we are addressing the management issues thru NIMS training, etc.  We could use more guided leadership training exercises written into our SAREXs.  With well experienced and qualified mentors, our members will get a better understanding and appreciation of what needs to be done and how to be successful.  However, we could also argue our PD program gives the members some of the leadership tools necessary to be successful in ES;  a more complete understanding of the workings and culture of CAP leads to a better understanding of working with CAP members.  
Then again, we could make the ES specialty tracks (communications, flight ops, ops, es) more tied to ES Qualifications.  There are many ways we can improve our training and abilities.  

[arajca]

Which tracks and what is the link to ES Ops Quals?  Sources please.  The closest specific requirement I have found is the Master rating in the ES track requires completion of the National SAR Planners Course.  It does not require any specific achievement in ES - just a ES qualification.  MSA counts - maybe even just GES - put no requirement to progress in ES - just hold an ES qualification.

According to the CAPP 200 series pubs I D/L'd 3/28/08, the only ES requirements for any PD rating are for Emergency Services, 213. The Tech rating requires GES, and be continuously qualified in an ES specialty for one year. Senior and Master ratings require longer periods of qualification (3 yrs, and 5 yrs, respectively).

Comm requires MRO for Tech and CUL for Senior.

[SarDragon]

Which tracks and what is the link to ES Ops Quals?  Sources please.  The closest specific requirement I have found is the Master rating in the ES track requires completion of the National SAR Planners Course.  It does not require any specific achievement in ES - just a ES qualification.  MSA counts - maybe even just GES - put no requirement to progress in ES - just hold an ES qualification.

According to the CAPP 200 series pubs I D/L'd 3/28/08, the only ES requirements for any PD rating are for Emergency Services, 213. The Tech rating requires GES, and be continuously qualified in an ES specialty for one year. Senior and Master ratings require longer periods of qualification (3 yrs, and 5 yrs, respectively).

Comm requires MRO for Tech and CUL for Senior.

Disagree. MRO and CUL do not appear in CAPP 214, neither as initialisms nor spelled out.

Tech requires CAP Form 43, Technician Level Communicator's Test, and Senior requires CAP Form 44, Senior Communicator Test, neither of which are listed on the respective SQTRs above.

Tech requires an ROA. MRO requires BCUT. CUL requires ACUT. I see no other specific cross-over requirements.

YMMV.

[arajca]

Which tracks and what is the link to ES Ops Quals?  Sources please.  The closest specific requirement I have found is the Master rating in the ES track requires completion of the National SAR Planners Course.  It does not require any specific achievement in ES - just a ES qualification.  MSA counts - maybe even just GES - put no requirement to progress in ES - just hold an ES qualification.

According to the CAPP 200 series pubs I D/L'd 3/28/08, the only ES requirements for any PD rating are for Emergency Services, 213. The Tech rating requires GES, and be continuously qualified in an ES specialty for one year. Senior and Master ratings require longer periods of qualification (3 yrs, and 5 yrs, respectively).

Comm requires MRO for Tech and CUL for Senior.

Disagree. MRO and CUL do not appear in CAPP 214, neither as initialisms nor spelled out.

Tech requires CAP Form 43, Technician Level Communicator's Test, and Senior requires CAP Form 44, Senior Communicator Test, neither of which are listed on the respective SQTRs above.

Tech requires an ROA. MRO requires BCUT. CUL requires ACUT. I see no other specific cross-over requirements.

YMMV.

My misstatement. Participation in ES is required for Tech rating, just not spelled out as MRO. Ref. CAPP 214, Technician Rating, Para 3b, line 3:

(3) Participation in one mission in any communications capacity.

For the senior rating, though CUL is required, ref CAPP 214 Senior Rating, Para 3c, line 2:

(2) Participation in at least three operations missions in a communications capacity with at least one as communicator office.

Old Communications Officer = current Communications Unit Leader.

[DNall]

...It may be a very good idea to insure our ES leaders/managers have the management and leadership skills necessary to be successful.  IMHO, we are addressing the management issues thru NIMS training, etc. ... However, we could also argue our PD program gives the members some of the leadership tools necessary to be successful in ES;  a more complete understanding of the workings and culture of CAP leads to a better understanding of working with CAP members. 

NIMS doesn't teach leadership or mgmt in really any way at all. To degree it teaches how to manage operations in terms of the job skill, but it doesn't really teach how to lead or manage people/personalities, how to create the RIGHT team for the situation, how to get the most out of that team, etc. Those are aspects of more generalized leadership & management that we are lacking on a much wider (than ES) scale within CAP. That's what CAP needs to be addressing in PD on a progressive scale that really challenges members & makes them better. I personally believe it should be on a scale that makes them more successful & marketable within the civilian world as well - that's the scale it should be on, not some lolli-gaggin BS.

The other side of the coin - vis-a-vie your comments about the breakdowns in Katrina, and many of our experiences on other missions & within CAP in general - is followership/discipline. If I'm GBD on a mission & one of my GTLs isn't happy with my answer, wants to talk to the IC, but the IC is on with AFRCC at the time, they don't need to hang up on me & call the IC directly. If this were the Army, we'd be having a serious heart to heart when they got back. But CAP we have to deal with volunteer civilian personalities - all bad words for professional responders, which is a limiting factor for CAP. I don't mean to say we need some kind of boot camp for adults. Just that we need to instill a degree of operational discipline not unlike you see in any real emergency service agency. That's also something that should be part of the entry level PD & reinforced throughout progression.

[FW]

^D., I think you're on the right track.  My thoughts may have been an oversimplification of the issue.  But in a forum like this, IMHO, it usually helps.

[arajca]

The other side of the coin - vis-a-vie your comments about the breakdowns in Katrina, and many of our experiences on other missions & within CAP in general - is followership/discipline. If I'm GBD on a mission & one of my GTLs isn't happy with my answer, wants to talk to the IC, but the IC is on with AFRCC at the time, they don't need to hang up on me & call the IC directly. If this were the Army, we'd be having a serious heart to heart when they got back. But CAP we have to deal with volunteer civilian personalities - all bad words for professional responders, which is a limiting factor for CAP. I don't mean to say we need some kind of boot camp for adults. Just that we need to instill a degree of operational discipline not unlike you see in any real emergency service agency. That's also something that should be part of the entry level PD & reinforced throughout progression.

From what I've read, many of the problems CAP had was getting the right folks dispatched. I don't mean ranger vs nonranger or age issues. One of the issues was repeated requests for logistics section chiefs. National kept sending IC's who had not concept of logistics because LSC is not part of the progression to IC.

I defintely agree that CAP needs some sort of real leadership training program. Nowadays, alot of service issues come down to "What's in it for me?" A leadership program that has real world recognition and application would be a great help in recruiting seniors, especially younger ones.

[DNall]

I think they just didn't have qualified people to send. The few people qual'd in those areas are not the ones that tend to have a tent in their trunk or willing to sleep on any kind of floor.

The problem with things like FASC & LSC is they aren't sexy jobs. I've said before I think those, as well as safety need to be integrated into the specialty tracks. That increases the pool of people we have to draw from. LSC & FASC in particular are things that don't get much credit in CAP because our activities tend to be SO poorly planned. In a normal military operating environment, those folks would have a whole lot of sway in in what's allowed to happen, because it ultimately can't happen unless those people can get their end of it done. When you're on a 3-day mission & can pull over for gas/food, and the paperwork can be cleaned up a couple days after, then it's not such a big deal.

[O-Rex]

I'm a big PD advocate, but I have problems with the prospect of mixing PD and ES requirements.

In the Military, Technical training and PME are usually kept separate.

Getting an ES rating is usually not a quick process: why gum it up even more?

[DNall]

I'm a big PD advocate, but I have problems with the prospect of mixing PD and ES requirements.

In the Military, Technical training and PME are usually kept separate.

Getting an ES rating is usually not a quick process: why gum it up even more?

That's true. However, operational command positions would be based on rank, which is directly related to PME among other requirements. And, technical training in for those positions would be limited to the people selected to them, thereby the ones that meet the grade requirements. Meaning they are indirectly related thru a common link that we don't have in CAP, and it's causing us issues.

[O-Rex]

I'm a big PD advocate, but I have problems with the prospect of mixing PD and ES requirements.

In the Military, Technical training and PME are usually kept separate.

Getting an ES rating is usually not a quick process: why gum it up even more?

That's true. However, operational command positions would be based on rank, which is directly related to PME among other requirements. And, technical training in for those positions would be limited to the people selected to them, thereby the ones that meet the grade requirements. Meaning they are indirectly related thru a common link that we don't have in CAP, and it's causing us issues.

I think at least unofficially, works that way now (?) 

Typically, your IC's aren't Second-Lieutenants: mostly Lt Cols, Majors and an occasional Captain.

[DNall]

I'm a big PD advocate, but I have problems with the prospect of mixing PD and ES requirements.

In the Military, Technical training and PME are usually kept separate.

Getting an ES rating is usually not a quick process: why gum it up even more?

That's true. However, operational command positions would be based on rank, which is directly related to PME among other requirements. And, technical training in for those positions would be limited to the people selected to them, thereby the ones that meet the grade requirements. Meaning they are indirectly related thru a common link that we don't have in CAP, and it's causing us issues.

I think at least unofficially, works that way now (?) 

Typically, your IC's aren't Second-Lieutenants: mostly Lt Cols, Majors and an occasional Captain.

I'm glad someone understood what I was saying, cause re-reading it, it didn't seem too clear.

This is where we get the breakdown on the CAP side though. You do actually have a serious disconnect btwn grade & position across the board & within operational missions. You do see lower ranking ICs & higher ranking folks in the field. I don't mean to make a big deal about the grade or even outward appearance. What I'm talking about is more what it means.

What we do is sort of a free for all. People can just train in anything they feel like, then come the mission it's whoever has the necessary checklist signed off gets the job. That doesn't say anything about fitness for command - leader/mgr skills to actually execute the position.

In any other SaR/ES/first responder/etc agency it wouldn't work like that. The leader/mgr skills would be the FIRST thing looked at. From that you'd cherry pick people into appropriate positions & put them thru the technical skills training to do the job. By doing it backwards, we never reach that same capability.

Internally we can get by with that, but not in an inter-agency environment. That's a huge limiting factor for CAP that we can't play on even terms with the rest of the world, and no amount of IC100-800 courses is going to fix that.

Even if you dismiss that. I do understand there has to be some compromise from the way a paid agency does things to the way you deal with volunteers, but there's a tipping point. There's some point of moral obligation where we can't allow our capabilities to slip lower & still step into these operations where people's lives are on the line. I think that, a lot more than things like insurance/liability, is the reason you don't see us front & center in the middle of big time disaster or HLS ops. There's no reason we can't or shouldn't be there, but it takes a bit of a paradigm shift to make that move. I think we have a moral obligation to get on that level.

[ZigZag911]

Back in the dark ages, WIWAC, Mission Coordinators (former title of today's ICs) tended top be group CCs, CDs, DOs, or wing staff officers in Ops or ES. Sometimes (rarely) you'd find a squadron level commander or field grade officer (usually a past group CC or wing staff officer) in that role.

When did that change? And more importantly, WHY?

Are our most experienced officers dodging mission responsibility?

Has there been a disconnect between command and operation?

In part I think this is the fruits of requiring our corporate officers to become bogged down in trivia (e.g., who can wear what hat in the field!)

But that alone does not explain the situation.

Both command and ES are certainly more complex than they were 30 years ago....but even that in itself doesn't explain why, in some instances, senior personnel are leaving the tough jobs to less experienced members.

[RiverAux]

All of the current ICs in our Wing are wing staff members of one type or another.  There are a few non-Wing people in the pipeline to get there. 

I think that those in command roles probably think they're already doing their bit for CAP and that being an IC on top of that would be too much of a strain.  I think this would probably apply more in the states that are over-run with ELTs than most of the rest of the country. 

[O-Rex]

All of the current ICs in our Wing are wing staff members of one type or another.  There are a few non-Wing people in the pipeline to get there. 

I think that those in command roles probably think they're already doing their bit for CAP and that being an IC on top of that would be too much of a strain.  I think this would probably apply more in the states that are over-run with ELTs than most of the rest of the country. 

As a Group CC in a large metropolitan area, I say yes, it is. 

[ZigZag911]

I was a Group C in a large metropolitan area for over six years; during that time I trained for IC, qualified,  and began handling missions.

My group, by the way, had seven squadrons and nearly 500 members (bigger than some wings!)

It can be done....I'm not saying everyone should or must....but there is an example to be set by wing & group DO, DOS staffs...and, at least at group level, the command element.

[RiverAux]

Oh, I agree with you that it would be good to have various commanders also being the ones leading the missions. 

[Hawk200]

Reqiring ES for PD is a bad idea, IMO.

Now, if you wanted to allow substitutions of ICS or ES courses for some of the PD requirements, I'd be Okay with it.

ES is not the be-all, end-all of CAP. No issues with accomodating it, but I don't think it should be required.

[RiverAux]

Hawk, you've got it 180 degrees backward.  What I proposed was basically that PD would be required to do ES, not the other way around.

[Hawk200]

Hawk, you've got it 180 degrees backward.  What I proposed was basically that PD would be required to do ES, not the other way around.

Oh. Oops. That I would be on board with, easy. Would probably eliminate some of the complainers that I've seen that gripe about "not enough time" to do PD when they've been spending all their time on ES work.

It would whittle down some of the ranks that would be active in ES, but I don't necessarily think that would be a bad thing. Not to mention, people would get motivated to move up through.