Mission Safety Officer Responsibilities

[Storm Chaser]

CAPR 62-1, dated 19 Dec 2012, states the following:

Mission safety officer duties are defined in CAPR 60-3.

CAPR 60-3 barely makes mention of the Mission Safety Officer (MSO) as an "approved specialty qualifications above the GES level." Other than the Mission Base Task Guide, in which regulation are the MSO duties and responsibilities defined?

[Eclipse]

The task guide is where they are defined, as is the case with pretty much all the quals.

[Storm Chaser]

The task guide is where they are defined, as is the case with pretty much all the quals.

Yet, that's not what CAPR 62-1 says. In addition, CAPR 60-3 describes certain functions of the IC, the AOBD and the GBD, especially as they relate to safety. But there's no mention of the MSO's role.

The Task Guide provides the tasks and grading criteria for the MSO qualification, but it's not regulatory in nature. Is there no regulation covering the role of the MSO?

[Eclipse]

Who says the Tasks Guides aren't regulatory?  I've heard this argument for years, but you u can't participate in ES without complying with them.

They indicate the mandates for qualifications, the expectations of performance of the respective duty, and for certain specialties required equipment.

62-1 says "see 60-3" and 60-3 says "see the task guide".

[lordmonar]

The task guide is where they are defined, as is the case with pretty much all the quals.

Yet, that's not what CAPR 62-1 says. In addition, CAPR 60-3 describes certain functions of the IC, the AOBD and the GBD, especially as they relate to safety. But there's no mention of the MSO's role.

The Task Guide provides the tasks and grading criteria for the MSO qualification, but it's not regulatory in nature. Is there no regulation covering the role of the MSO?

What more regulations do you need for the Mission Safety Officer........It is pretty simple just from the title of the job and the ICS system.
The Safety Officer advises the IC on safety issues related to the incident.

[Storm Chaser]

What more regulations do you need for the Mission Safety Officer........It is pretty simple just from the title of the job and the ICS system.
The Safety Officer advises the IC on safety issues related to the incident.

Well, I wish it was that simple; maybe it is (or should be). But in my wing there are many "unwritten" rules about how we conduct business. Having a regulation spelling things out sometimes helps.

For example, I had a SAREX recently that almost got cancelled because our scheduled MSO could not make it. Since the IC was also a qualified MSO, I suggested he could assume both roles. The group, and presumably the wing, initially stated that the IC and MSO had to be different people. I challenged that assumption and, eventually, my interpretation was accepted and we were able to proceed.

Another "rule" I keep hearing is that the MSO can't do anything else during a training exercise, but that particular function. I'm trying to find supporting documentation for that. CAPR 60-3 says that members may train in more than one specialty and, depending on the size of the incident or exercise, an individual may have more than one role. Where can I find whether this applies to the MSO or not?

[Eclipse]

There isn't even a requirement that a mission have an MSO.

Unwritten rules need to be treated as nonsense, and then they go away.

Show me the reg, OI, or supp, or move out of the way.

[Storm Chaser]

There isn't even a requirement that a mission have an MSO.

Unwritten rules need to be treated as nonsense, and then they go away.

Show me the reg, OI, or supp, or move out of the way.

Agree and that's exactly what I've been doing. But I tell you; it's not an easy task.

The purpose of my original post was not to suggest additional regulation for the MSO, but to inquire if there was other publications of a regulatory nature that I was unaware of. The only way to fight these "unwritten" rules is to know your stuff well.

[Eclipse]

That's for sure. 

If there's one value to CT, it's that we beat to death anything that's gray, while reinforcing what's actually written.

[JeffDG]

Regardless of the lack of regulation that the IC and MSO need to be different people, legal doesn't necessarily mean smart.

The IC can easily get a mission-focus mindset...get the mission done and not think about the rest.  The rest of the mission team, like the Ops Section and the crews are suceptible to the same trap.  Having one individual around whose focus is safety to say to the IC "Hey, you sure you wanna do that?" is incredibly helpful

[Storm Chaser]

Regardless of the lack of regulation that the IC and MSO need to be different people, legal doesn't necessarily mean smart.

We're talking about a small exercise here, where resources are limited. The ICS system provides an organizational structure that can grow with the complexity of an incident. Why should it be different for training? I did an actual non-distress UDF mission recently and there was no MSO, AOBD or GBD. It was a small mission; we didn't need those positions. Besides, if a wing or group wants to have more restrictive requirements, they can issue a supplement or OI as appropriate.

[lordmonar]

+1

The whole IC system is about scalability.

The only position that MUST be filled is the IC.

Now.....we are have to talk about specifics......this SAREX is how big?  How many assets are you deploying?  How complicated is the mission, what special circumstances are there (weather, terrain, experience levels, etc).

I can see Wing imposing limits on a case by case basis.....but not a blanket policy "you must have a MSO and he must have no other duties"....that's just asinine.

BTW.....CAP also has this rule for their squadron SO's.....and that is asinine as well.

Now....here's the "let's get it done" answer.

Okay...you must have a MSO.....who does nothing else......okay plan it that way.   Take your MSO rated guy and stick him in that position.....and move forward.   Day of.........move him to where he is doing the best work and stick a trainee into the MSO position.

As we all know no plan survives first contact with the enemy intact.   

Done and Done.

[JeffDG]

Regardless of the lack of regulation that the IC and MSO need to be different people, legal doesn't necessarily mean smart.

We're talking about a small exercise here, where resources are limited. The ICS system provides an organizational structure that can grow with the complexity of an incident. Why should it be different for training? I did an actual non-distress UDF mission recently and there was no MSO, AOBD or GBD. It was a small mission; we didn't need those positions. Besides, if a wing or group wants to have more restrictive requirements, they can issue a supplement or OI as appropriate.

That's entirely appropriate...myself, I know a number of fully qualified MSOs, and I'd just give one a call and say "Hey, here's what I'm planning...any issues?" as a "check" against mission-focus.

About scalability, how about this:  MSO should be one of the earlier roles that gets filled in the ICS structure.  Single-IC/UDF Team...fantastic...but by the time you're looking for a GBD/AOBD, might be a good idea to have someone focused on Safety for ya.

And the small training exercises are excellent opportunities for a new person to train in a lower stress environment, so get a trainee in there...the IC can always supervise a trainee (even if he can't evaluate).

[Eclipse]

BTW.....CAP also has this rule for their squadron SO's.....and that is asinine as well.

62-1 still allows for the Unit CC to be the SE.  I've done this dance with inspectors.

(1) Every chartered unit (except region HQ and wing 000 and 999) shall formally
appoint a safety officer in eServices with qualifications appropriate to that unit's operational
activities. Members in command positions should not simultaneously serve as that unit's safety
officer. Whenever possible, and especially in flying units, members with flying experience
should be selected as a safety officer. Safety officers will report directly to the commander
(reference CAPR 20-1, Organization of Civil Air Patrol).

[Storm Chaser]

BTW.....CAP also has this rule for their squadron SO's.....and that is asinine as well.

62-1 still allows for the Unit CC to be the SE.  I've done this dance with inspectors.

(1) Every chartered unit (except region HQ and wing 000 and 999) shall formally
appoint a safety officer in eServices with qualifications appropriate to that unit's operational
activities. Members in command positions should not simultaneously serve as that unit's safety
officer. Whenever possible, and especially in flying units, members with flying experience
should be selected as a safety officer. Safety officers will report directly to the commander
(reference CAPR 20-1, Organization of Civil Air Patrol).

Where are you reading that 62-1 still allows the unit commander to be the safety officer. The quote you provided says "[e]very chartered unit...shall formally appoint a safety officer... Members in command should not simultaneously serve as that unit's safety officer." [emphasis mine]

What am I missing here?

[Eclipse]

1 - Shall appoint - so the appointment of "someone" is required.

2 - "Should not" (vs. "will not" or "may not" or "shall not") - the use of the term should in regulations indicates the preferred case but still allows
for the discretion of the commander.

In this specific case, if the unit CC was prohibited from being the SE, then it would say "shall not be the unit CC", as is specified for the FM.

It's in these nuances where many of the wive's tales and "double secret policies" are born.

[Storm Chaser]

1 - Shall appoint - so the appointment of "someone" is required".

2 - "Should not" (vs. "will not" or "may not" or "shall not") - the use of the term should in regulations indicates the preferred case but still allows
for the discretion of the commander.

In this specific case, if the unit CC was prohibited from being the SE, then it would say "shall not be the unit CC", as is specified for the FM.

I buy that, but why make the appointment at all then? The unit commander is already responsible for safety in his or her unit. It is his or her program. The unit safety officer is appointed to assist and advise the commander. Why would a commander need to appoint him or herself as the unit safety officer? Who is the commander going to assist or advise?

[Eclipse]

I buy that, but why make the appointment at all then? The unit commander is already responsible for safety in his or her unit. It is his or her program. The unit safety officer is appointed to assist and advise the commander. Why would a commander need to appoint him or herself as the unit safety officer? Who is the commander going to assist or advise?

You tell me - this, along with AEO, PIO, & FM are on the list of slowly creeping "required" appointments.  One could assume that the reasoning is that
by requiring the appointment the job will get done, but the reality is that unless you have motivated people willing to do it, these are just SUI
checkboxes with little teeth.

Up until a few years ago, the assumption was always that the duties of any position not filled fell back on the CC by default.  FM is understandable, but
the WBP pretty much negates that issue as well, since a unit cc is no longer able to just go to the bank and drain an account, etc.

At some point NHQ started adding "wills" to the list of required staffers - AEO & PIO are fairly recent.  These are likely someone's idea of "forcing the issue"
of the organization's historically poor performance in these areas, and I'm sure the SE mandate is some insurance or legal guy's idea, but the reality is
that there is little way you can really mandate much in our current "you're lucky I showed up at all" culture.

Successful units would already be doing these things as a matter of course, and struggling units aren't going to just step-up because
something goes from a "should" to a "will" (they probably won't even know about it).  Those regs don't include "just add water for more people"
(seems like kind of a common thread here, the more people thing, hm?).

I'd say this is another place that following a military model cause CAP issues - the military can mandate a billet, and force people to do the job if necessary,
not so with CAP.

Again, we need more people.  In a unit with 20 seniors, it's far more likely you would have a few who are happy, but not 100% engaged with "non-fun" CAP
work, so asking someone to step up and check more boxes, or maybe rotate a couple in the spot is easier then in a unit with 3, where the members are
probably spending the majority of their time on administrivia, and aren't going to be too interested in even more time-wasting check boxes.

Further to the overall issue, it's so hard to find good SE's and MSOs, that when you do, they wind up getting type-cast and can't get out of the ICP to
do what they joined for.  I've heard that a >lot<.  They understand we need them, so they are willing to do it for a while, but at some point "it's enough"
and we never see them in that role again.

The fact that the majority of the Safety program is a waste of precious time doesn't help either - the SE's and MSO's wind up being essentially the "HR Guys"
of a unit or a meeting, and who want's to be that?

A mission-focused "do it right because it's right" culture engenders safety as a by-product.  Like most similar organizations, we're focused on the "safety pennies"
and letting the "safety dollars" blow out the window.

[isuhawkeye]

Back to the original question.

In the ICS world the safety officer works as a part of the command team during the tactics meeting to complete the following items. 

1. Completed the ICS form 215a

2. Provides input for the operations section chief as they complete the ICS form 215

These items set the tempo sk

[Storm Chaser]

I'd say this is another place that following a military model cause CAP issues - the military can mandate a billet, and force people to do the job if necessary,
not so with CAP.

Not to go off topic here, but perhaps this is an area where we could model the military. In the Air Force, safety is a function of the wing. The wing has dedicated billets to meet specific mission requirements. Each unit appoints a safety officer and NCO as an additional duty. Units don't have their own finance officers or public affairs officers or many of the other functional staff positions. These often fall to the wing or mission support group.

I often wondered if CAP should staff these positions at the group level and have them provide direct support to their subordinate squadrons. I know that groups already fill these positions, but they do so as an additional layer of supervision. What I mean is that Group HQ could have a finance office of multiple qualified individuals to support all units within their group. The same would apply to other staff functions. The squadrons then could focus on mission related functions; those required to accomplish their missions.

[James Shaw]

A mission-focused "do it right because it's right" culture engenders safety as a by-product.  Like most similar organizations, we're focused on the "safety pennies"
and letting the "safety dollars" blow out the window.

I am curious what the "safety pennies and safety dollars" represent.