Blue Beret and SAR ribbon

[Cadet David Derasmo]

     I will be going to Blue Beret this year and have several goals I wish to achieve. Two of them being to hopefully gain the requirements needed for the find ribbon and SAR ribbon. From what I hear getting a find is almost a definite however, from any berets, what are the odds of going on 10 sorties? Are there ways to volunteer or ensure you are able to go on multiple SAR missions? Thank you for your time.

(also if Ground Teams are determined based on certs I am a: GTL (T), GTM 3-1, UDF, MRO, MSA, SARTECH 2, First Responder and PJOC grad.)

[lordmonar]

A ground sortie is a depart and return.....or any sortie that is 4 hour in length....so if you work 4.1 hours a day for five days......you get 10 sorties.

The key is to have fun, do a good job, learn some new skills, meet some new people......look at cool air planes.

The ribbons and medals will come when you've earned them.

[LSThiker]

Getting a Find is pretty much guaranteed.  However, the SAR ribbon is dependent on a number of factors.  Do not worry to much about it because it is out of your control.  The ground teams are based depending on your flight (not your qualifications).  When I a flight commander, and later an ES officer, there, the only GTLs were the Senior Members.  Also, as a flight commander, I created my flight's ES rotations. 

Have fun, meet some interesting people, and look at cool planes.

[Archer]

     I will be going to Blue Beret this year and have several goals I wish to achieve. Two of them being to hopefully gain the requirements needed for the find ribbon and SAR ribbon. From what I hear getting a find is almost a definite however, from any berets, what are the odds of going on 10 sorties? Are there ways to volunteer or ensure you are able to go on multiple SAR missions? Thank you for your time.

(also if Ground Teams are determined based on certs I am a: GTL, GTM 3-1, UDF, MRO, MSA, SARTECH 2, First Responder and PJOC grad.)

Cadet, how did you become a GTL when your profile states that you are sixteen years old?

[Cadet David Derasmo]

"The key is to have fun, do a good job, learn some new skills, meet some new people......look at cool air planes.

The ribbons and medals will come when you've earned them."

Absolutely, I agree. I just have a few secondary goals I'm working on. Also, according to this year's FB page, if you are not a returning beret you can still apply as a Flight Commander. Obviously preference goes to returning berets however what are the odds of this happening? Thank you for your time.

[Cadet David Derasmo]

"Cadet, how did you become a GTL when your profile states that you are sixteen years old?"

That was my mistake. I am a GTL (T). I have had all tasks completed for GTL for a little over two years. Just that darn 18 years of age prerequisite. But yes I am not a GTL I am a trainee.

[JeffDG]

"Cadet, how did you become a GTL when your profile states that you are sixteen years old?"

That was my mistake. I am a GTL (T). I have had all tasks completed for GTL for a little over two years. Just that darn 18 years of age prerequisite. But yes I am not a GTL I am a trainee.

Ummmm...prerequisites are required before you become a "Trainee".

The sequence is:  Prerequisites must be completed before Fam & Prem (n/a for GTL as there are no fam/prep), then advanced training.

You're not a GTL Trainee unless you have GTL* on your 101 card.

[Storm Chaser]

A ground sortie is a depart and return.....or any sortie that is 4 hour in length....so if you work 4.1 hours a day for five days......you get 10 sorties.

The key is to have fun, do a good job, learn some new skills, meet some new people......look at cool air planes.

The ribbons and medals will come when you've earned them.

For award of the Air Search and Rescue Ribbon, CAPR 39-3 states the following:

Ground personnel performing hazardous duties such as ground rescue or ground search, may be credited with one sortie for each 4 hours of actual participation, but not to exceed three sorties in any 24-hour period. (emphasis mine)

I read this as a minimum of 4 hours to get credit for one sortie for the ribbon. Where are you getting that 0.1 hours counts as a second sortie? Is there additional guidance on this?

[Luis R. Ramos]

I was looking for ES qualification info on another cadet on eServices when the question of C/Maj Derasmo came up. His 101 says: GES, ICS 100, ICS 700, GTM1, ICUT, *MRO, *MSA, UDF. When I looked at his GTL tasks, eServices states he has not met the GTL age task. He is missing also two other GTL tasks, that is ICS 200 and Commander Approval. However he does have his two missions as GTL!

eServices does not list this cadet as a GTL (T), nor this qual appear on his 101.

How has he been able to get all these tasks signed off?

Can anyone else agree with me he should not call himself a GTL (T)?

[edited for syntaxis]

Flyer

[JeffDG]

I was looking for ES qualification info on another cadet on eServices when the question of C/Maj Derasmo came up. His 101 says: GES, ICS 100, ICS 700, GTM1, ICUT, *MRO, *MSA, UDF. When I looked at his GTL tasks, eServices states he has not met the GTL age task. He is missing also two other GTL tasks, that is ICS 200 and Commander Approval. However he does have his two missions as GTL!

eServices does not list this cadet as a GTL (T), this qual does not appear on his 101.

How has he been able to get all these tasks?

Flyer

As a wing-level approver (not in his Wing), I'll tell you that here, "Missions" before trainee status will get a SQTR disapproved.  Training tasks, I'm less picky about.  But the "Mission Participation" requires that the member be acting in the capacity as a trainee, and to do that legally, and to have the responsibility, you need to have your Prereqs done, and you Fam/Prep done.

Concur, he is not a GTL (T).

[Storm Chaser]

Being 18 is a prerequisite for GTL. No one can be a GTL trainee until all prerequisites and familiarization and preparatory training have been completed and approved. In fact, according to CAPR 60-3, no one can get credit for exercise participation until these have been completed.

Someone hasn't been following the rules with Cadet Derasmo's GTL SQTR. That said, he's not a GTL (T).

[JeffDG]

Someone hasn't been following the rules with Cadet Derasmo's GTL SQTR. That said, he's not a GTL (T).

If neither the SQTR itself, nor the "Prerequisites" section have been processed, that SQTR hasn't been "Approved" by anyone.

[lordmonar]

A ground sortie is a depart and return.....or any sortie that is 4 hour in length....so if you work 4.1 hours a day for five days......you get 10 sorties.

The key is to have fun, do a good job, learn some new skills, meet some new people......look at cool air planes.

The ribbons and medals will come when you've earned them.

For award of the Air Search and Rescue Ribbon, CAPR 39-3 states the following:

Ground personnel performing hazardous duties such as ground rescue or ground search, may be credited with one sortie for each 4 hours of actual participation, but not to exceed three sorties in any 24-hour period. (emphasis mine)

I read this as a minimum of 4 hours to get credit for one sortie for the ribbon. Where are you getting that 0.1 hours counts as a second sortie?

So....any sortie less then 4 hours does not count?

My reading of the regulation is a sortie......is any time you depart on a sortie and return.....(for aircaft that would be a take off and a landing)....or any sortie that lasts longer then 4 hours not to exceed 3.....ergo if you depart mission base at 0600 and return at 1900 hours...that is 13 hours on a single IMU sortie.......but counts at 3 for for the ribbon.

If you depart at 0600 and return at 0645.....that's a sortie.

If you depart at 0600 and return at 1200....that's 6 hours in the field on one IMU sortie....but counts as IMHO as two sorties....one for the first four hours and one for the rest of it. 

If my 0.1 hours don't count....because of the "4 hour" interpretation.....then NO sortie less then 4 hours counts.

[Eclipse]

A sortie is either "wheels up / wheels down" (for aircrew).

Or "go / come back" for Ground Team & UDF.  The time issue only comes into play for extended duration
in the field, and then only as a function for the ribbon.

If you do a full work up and are recalled ten minutes later, that's a +1 on the ribbon.

If you go out and wind up in the field for 12 hours, or overnight, that's a single paperwork sortie and +3 for the ribbon.

[lordmonar]

A sortie is either "wheels up / wheels down" (for aircrew).

Or "go / come back" for Ground Team & UDF.  The time issue only comes into play for extended duration
in the field, and then only as a function for the ribbon.

If you do a full work up and are recalled ten minutes later, that's a +1 on the ribbon.

If you go out and wind up in the field for 12 hours, or overnight, that's a single paperwork sortie and +3 for the ribbon.

I don't think anyone is confused about that.....but what about a 4.1 hour paperwork sortie?

Is that one sortie or two?

[LSThiker]

I was looking for ES qualification info on another cadet on eServices when the question of C/Maj Derasmo came up. His 101 says: GES, ICS 100, ICS 700, GTM1, ICUT, *MRO, *MSA, UDF. When I looked at his GTL tasks, eServices states he has not met the GTL age task. He is missing also two other GTL tasks, that is ICS 200 and Commander Approval. However he does have his two missions as GTL!

eServices does not list this cadet as a GTL (T), nor this qual appear on his 101.

How has he been able to get all these tasks signed off?

Can anyone else agree with me he should not call himself a GTL (T)?

[edited for syntaxis]

Flyer

Careful.  The use of eServices and Member Searches are for official CAP use.  I do not think CAP Legal would agree looking up someone's ES data for the purposes of Captalk would count as FOUO. 

[Eclipse]

This shows another big weakness in the SET system.

Any tasks or missions signed off should be invalid until the pre-reqs are met.
If you aren't minimally qualified and commander approved, you're not allowed to
be evaluated.

There needs to be a conversation here with the SET, who is clearly vague on the term "requirements",
the cadet's commander, and whomever approved all those tasks up to the wing level.

You're supposed to actually >CHECK< what you're clicking.

[Eclipse]

A sortie is either "wheels up / wheels down" (for aircrew).

Or "go / come back" for Ground Team & UDF.  The time issue only comes into play for extended duration
in the field, and then only as a function for the ribbon.

If you do a full work up and are recalled ten minutes later, that's a +1 on the ribbon.

If you go out and wind up in the field for 12 hours, or overnight, that's a single paperwork sortie and +3 for the ribbon.

I don't think anyone is confused about that.....but what about a 4.1 hour paperwork sortie?

Is that one sortie or two?

One.

It's one per 4 hours.  Until you hit "8" it's still one sortie.

Anything else would encourage people to stop for lunch on the way back to game the system.

[lordmonar]

This shows another big weakness in the SET system.

Any tasks or missions signed off should be invalid until the pre-reqs are met.
If you aren't minimally qualified and commander approved, you're not allowed to
be evaluated.

There needs to be a conversation here with the SET, who is clearly vague on the term "requirements",
the cadet's commander, and whomever approved all those tasks up to the wing level.

You're supposed to actually >CHECK< what you're clicking.

You would think......except when GTL and GTM are concerned as there are a lot of over lap.   Also there are lots of cross specialty tasks.....everyone who does O-0004 gets it signed off for ALL specialties that have O-0004 in it.

Remember SETS are not signing off on a specialty.....just on tasks.......WING is the one who signs off the specialty.

[Storm Chaser]

Someone hasn't been following the rules with Cadet Derasmo's GTL SQTR. That said, he's not a GTL (T).

If neither the SQTR itself, nor the "Prerequisites" section have been processed, that SQTR hasn't been "Approved" by anyone.

I never said it was. But since this cadet has both exercise participations signed off in clear contradiction of CAPR 60-3, someone (i.e. the skills evaluator) hasn't been following the rules.

[Storm Chaser]

A sortie is either "wheels up / wheels down" (for aircrew).

Or "go / come back" for Ground Team & UDF.  The time issue only comes into play for extended duration
in the field, and then only as a function for the ribbon.

If you do a full work up and are recalled ten minutes later, that's a +1 on the ribbon.

If you go out and wind up in the field for 12 hours, or overnight, that's a single paperwork sortie and +3 for the ribbon.

I don't think anyone is confused about that.....but what about a 4.1 hour paperwork sortie?

Is that one sortie or two?

One.

It's one per 4 hours.  Until you hit "8" it's still one sortie.

Anything else would encourage people to stop for lunch on the way back to game the system.

Agree 100%.

[lordmonar]

A sortie is either "wheels up / wheels down" (for aircrew).

Or "go / come back" for Ground Team & UDF.  The time issue only comes into play for extended duration
in the field, and then only as a function for the ribbon.

If you do a full work up and are recalled ten minutes later, that's a +1 on the ribbon.

If you go out and wind up in the field for 12 hours, or overnight, that's a single paperwork sortie and +3 for the ribbon.

I don't think anyone is confused about that.....but what about a 4.1 hour paperwork sortie?

Is that one sortie or two?

One.

It's one per 4 hours.  Until you hit "8" it's still one sortie.

Anything else would encourage people to stop for lunch on the way back to game the system.

That makes no sense what so ever!

How can your 1 hour there and back count as one sortie but I would have to have 8 hours before I have two? 
Just make no logical sense.

[Eclipse]

Remember SETS are not signing off on a specialty.....just on tasks.......WING is the one who signs off the specialty.

All echelons and the SET have to approve mission tasks.  That's 3-4 people who are either misinformed
or just clicked,

[JeffDG]

I never said it was. But since this cadet has both exercise participations signed off in clear contradiction of CAPR 60-3, someone (i.e. the skills evaluator) hasn't been following the rules.

Well, that depends on when he did the Mission Participations.  He said he had all the tasks done 2 years ago, and that was before SETs had to "sign off" on things entered against their SET, or even SETs themselves were checked (except by approvers).

[Eclipse]

How can your 1 hour there and back count as one sortie but I would have to have 8 hours before I have two? 
Just make no logical sense.

There's no minimum time definition for a "sortie", only the 1-every 4 for the ribbon during extended duration missions.

[JeffDG]

Remember SETS are not signing off on a specialty.....just on tasks.......WING is the one who signs off the specialty.

All echelons and the SET have to approve mission tasks.  That's 3-4 people who are either misinformed
or just clicked,

No...just the SET approves tasks until the SQTR is complete...not until then do the echelon approvers even see it.

If someone signs off on your ability to keep a log, that just goes to the person doing the sign-off...it doesn't go to Unit-Group-Wing until the SQTR is done.

[Eclipse]

Remember SETS are not signing off on a specialty.....just on tasks.......WING is the one who signs off the specialty.

All echelons and the SET have to approve mission tasks.  That's 3-4 people who are either misinformed
or just clicked,

No...just the SET approves tasks until the SQTR is complete...not until then do the echelon approvers even see it.

If someone signs off on your ability to keep a log, that just goes to the person doing the sign-off...it doesn't go to Unit-Group-Wing until the SQTR is done.

Duh, yeah, you're right.

[JeffDG]

Remember SETS are not signing off on a specialty.....just on tasks.......WING is the one who signs off the specialty.

All echelons and the SET have to approve mission tasks.  That's 3-4 people who are either misinformed
or just clicked,

No...just the SET approves tasks until the SQTR is complete...not until then do the echelon approvers even see it.

If someone signs off on your ability to keep a log, that just goes to the person doing the sign-off...it doesn't go to Unit-Group-Wing until the SQTR is done.

Duh, yeah, you're right.

I get one right occasionally. 

[Luis R. Ramos]

LST-

Thanks for the warning.

My first instinct was to send this as a PM to some members. I did not follow it. I will be more careful in the future...

Flyer

[lordmonar]

Remember SETS are not signing off on a specialty.....just on tasks.......WING is the one who signs off the specialty.

All echelons and the SET have to approve mission tasks.  That's 3-4 people who are either misinformed
or just clicked,

Again......he may think he is trainee because he's got an E-service SQTR that has a bunch of tasks filled in.  He may have even gotten someone to sign off on a couple of tasks that were not on any other SQTR......but there is an argument that that is okay as well.....train as training presents itself.

And yes.....a lot of people just click OK and move on.

[SarDragon]

A sortie is either "wheels up / wheels down" (for aircrew).

Or "go / come back" for Ground Team & UDF.  The time issue only comes into play for extended duration
in the field, and then only as a function for the ribbon.

If you do a full work up and are recalled ten minutes later, that's a +1 on the ribbon.

If you go out and wind up in the field for 12 hours, or overnight, that's a single paperwork sortie and +3 for the ribbon.

I don't think anyone is confused about that.....but what about a 4.1 hour paperwork sortie?

Is that one sortie or two?

From a strict interpretation, it is probably two. From my personal ethical POV, I would call it one, and be done. YMMV.

[lordmonar]

A sortie is either "wheels up / wheels down" (for aircrew).

Or "go / come back" for Ground Team & UDF.  The time issue only comes into play for extended duration
in the field, and then only as a function for the ribbon.

If you do a full work up and are recalled ten minutes later, that's a +1 on the ribbon.

If you go out and wind up in the field for 12 hours, or overnight, that's a single paperwork sortie and +3 for the ribbon.

I don't think anyone is confused about that.....but what about a 4.1 hour paperwork sortie?

Is that one sortie or two?

From a strict interpretation, it is probably two. From my personal ethical POV, I would call it one, and be done. YMMV.

I admit that I am arguing for the sake of arguing a bit.    But it does matter.   If getting your people recognized for their good work is important.  And we all want to be professional and consistent in the way we do things.
It is important to know where one sortie ends and one begins.

It is not unethical to discuss what the standards are.   Nor is it unethical to make sure that you get credit for each and every sortie/hour coming to you.  No different then when you punch you time card to make sure that if you worked 0.1 hours over time....you get that time and half.....sure it is just six minutes at time and half......but it is yours by right and by law.

This is no different.

[Eclipse]

A lot of companies and unions have very specific rules for this exact issue, and would not allow someone to work
over their shift without prior approval.

As to the ethics, we're supposed to be teaching our cadets in have "integrity in all we do", looking for loopholes in the
regs just to add a ribbon fails that test.

[LSThiker]

"The key is to have fun, do a good job, learn some new skills, meet some new people......look at cool air planes.

The ribbons and medals will come when you've earned them."

Absolutely, I agree. I just have a few secondary goals I'm working on. Also, according to this year's FB page, if you are not a returning beret you can still apply as a Flight Commander. Obviously preference goes to returning berets however what are the odds of this happening? Thank you for your time.

Unless things have changed, quite good actually.  In fact, it happens when the flight commander is a first time attendee and the flight leader (pseudo flight sergeant) is a returning beret.

[lordmonar]

A lot of companies and unions have very specific rules for this exact issue, and would not allow someone to work
over their shift without prior approval.

As to the ethics, we're supposed to be teaching our cadets in have "integrity in all we do", looking for loopholes in the
regs just to add a ribbon fails that test.

I reject your assertion that "looking for loophole" is a failure in integrity.
Your point about company rules about having approval is a prime example of just what I am talking about....there are rules.....you should not be extending your sortie for the sole purpose of getting that six extra minutes just to get the another sortie credit.....but if you do get that 0.1 hour.....it counts.....that's the rule.

[Garibaldi]

A sortie is either "wheels up / wheels down" (for aircrew).

Or "go / come back" for Ground Team & UDF.  The time issue only comes into play for extended duration
in the field, and then only as a function for the ribbon.

If you do a full work up and are recalled ten minutes later, that's a +1 on the ribbon.

If you go out and wind up in the field for 12 hours, or overnight, that's a single paperwork sortie and +3 for the ribbon.

I don't think anyone is confused about that.....but what about a 4.1 hour paperwork sortie?

Is that one sortie or two?

One.

It's one per 4 hours.  Until you hit "8" it's still one sortie.

Anything else would encourage people to stop for lunch on the way back to game the system.

Anything from 10 minutes to 4 hours is one sortie. 4 to 8 hours should be 2, 8 to 12 should be 3. Maximum of 3 sorties in a 24 hour period with rests and meals in between. You cannot be tasked for more than 3 sorties in a 24 hour period. By looking at it, hours 4 to 8 SHOULD count as a second one, but if you are taken out of the field in hour 7, you get cheated IMO according to EclipseLogic (patent pending) since he looks at it as the first 4 hours as one, but anything less than 8 still counting as 1 until you hit that magic 8 hour mark. My interpretation is different from his, obviously, and if I am wrong, I will admit so. People can game the system, yes, but those sort of people should not be allowed to let their personal "glory" or "ribbon chasing" to interfere with the overall mission by claiming false data. At the end of the day, who is going to really give a turkey about that extra sortie in the real world? You can argue about it all day long and it will still come down to one person's interpretation of what constitutes Sortie #2.

To address the second point of Cadet Derasmo having qualifications that he is not age-appropriate for, he can train all day long but it won't count because he is still under 18. I had a similar issue that I finally argued to successful completion with the unit CC and LTC Long. Cadet High Drag was "told by someone at NESA that even though he was 15 he could act as GTL as long as there was a qualified SM along." Wrong. Big tall glass of nope. He continued to argue with both me and the unit CC until I showed him proof that he was wrong. Nothing he will "train" for will count once he hits 18. He will have to prove it on paper just like he was brand new, complete with new sorties as a GTL-T. End of story. Someone did him a great injustice by leading him on like that.

[Eclipse]

I reject your assertion that "looking for loophole" is a failure in integrity.

Exploiting a loophole is essentially the definition of lack of integrity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole
"A loophole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system. Loopholes are searched for and used strategically in a variety of circumstances, including taxes, elections, politics, the criminal justice system, or in breaches of security, or a response to one's civil liberties."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/loophole
"A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance."

Your point about company rules about having approval is a prime example of just what I am talking about....there are rules.....you should not be extending your sortie for the sole purpose of getting that six extra minutes just to get the another sortie credit.....but if you do get that 0.1 hour.....it counts.....that's the rule.

The reg is clear "per 4 hours", but only on extended duration.

Per 4, not per sortie, or per hour, per 4.

.1 is 237.6 minutes short of 4.

If the same team came back at 4.0, did another full work up and were recalled after .1 then they get two,
but 4.1 = one sortie.

[Storm Chaser]

but if you do get that 0.1 hour.....it counts.....that's the rule.

That's your interpretation (one which many others, including myself, disagree with). You have yet to prove that that's actually "the rule". That said, regulations should be better written to avoid these different interpretations. We need clarification from higher headquarters.

[Storm Chaser]

but if you do get that 0.1 hour.....it counts.....that's the rule.

That's your interpretation (one which many others, including myself, disagree with). You have yet to prove that that's actually "the rule". That said, regulations should be better written to avoid these different interpretations.

Instead of debating our different opinions, we need clarification from higher headquarters.

[Eclipse]

This was one of the reasons we started issuing Wing-level PAs for all missions to include the sorties awarded.

It removes the ambiguity below the Wing CC.

[lordmonar]

I reject your assertion that "looking for loophole" is a failure in integrity.

Exploiting a loophole is essentially the definition of lack of integrity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole
"A loophole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system. Loopholes are searched for and used strategically in a variety of circumstances, including taxes, elections, politics, the criminal justice system, or in breaches of security, or a response to one's civil liberties."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/loophole
"A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance."

Your point about company rules about having approval is a prime example of just what I am talking about....there are rules.....you should not be extending your sortie for the sole purpose of getting that six extra minutes just to get the another sortie credit.....but if you do get that 0.1 hour.....it counts.....that's the rule.

The reg is clear "per 4 hours", but only on extended duration.

Per 4, not per sortie, or per hour, per 4.

.1 is 237.6 minutes short of 4.

If the same team came back at 4.0, did another full work up and were recalled after .1 then they get two,
but 4.1 = one sortie.

Again.....I reject your assertion that exploiting a loophole is in and of itself unethical.
I also call you on using the "ethical" argument in discussing our different interpretations of the regs.

We may differ on what the standard is.....as written....but it is not because I or anyone else is unethical.  It is a difference in interpretation.

This bias of yours has surfaced before....as in when you justified your interpretation as a way of stopping people from extending their sortie just to get more credit.

We want people to participate in SAR.   We want to recognize them.  Why in the FSM's Green Earth would we make it harder for someone to get credit for doing a long mission then for someone just doing out and backs?   That simply makes no sense to me.

[Eclipse]

Again.....I reject your assertion that exploiting a loophole is in and of itself unethical.

I hazard you'd be in the minority on this.  Most people consider exploiting loopholes to be decidedly not cricket.

Why in the FSM's Green Earth would we make it harder for someone to get credit for doing a long mission then for someone just doing out and backs?   That simply makes no sense to me.

For starters, a 4.1 is not, by either common sense, or the actual definition a LDM.  By the definition of 39-3, those start at 8 hours.

And I would also hazard it's for the exact reason I indicated, to make the requirements clear.  Fudging a .1, or a .5, or even a whole hour
is pretty easy compared with adding an additional 4 to a sortie. I'd say in the average cluster...wing-level SAREx...a lot of sorties
are in the 4-hour range by the time they get there and back and wander around a bit.  Dragging your feet on lunch or jaw-jacking in the
parking lot while watching the clock should not earn a second ribbon.

[lordmonar]

Well I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

I think I feel a KB question coming. 

[Storm Chaser]

If you get an answer from KB, would you please post it here? Thanks.

[lordmonar]

If you get an answer from KB, would you please post it here? Thanks.

KB question sent.   I will post results.

[Spaceman3750]

You cannot be tasked for more than 3 sorties in a 24 hour period.

The reg in question governs ribbons, not GT duty day. AFAIK, outside of the expectation that GT3s will only be self sufficient for 24 hours, there is no duty day limit for GTMs. All this reg does is make it so that you are only eligible for 3 sorties a day for ribbon purposes.

[Eclipse]

You cannot be tasked for more than 3 sorties in a 24 hour period.

The reg in question governs ribbons, not GT duty day. AFAIK, outside of the expectation that GT3s will only be self sufficient for 24 hours, there is no duty day limit for GTMs. All this reg does is make it so that you are only eligible for 3 sorties a day for ribbon purposes.

Correct.

[lordmonar]

You cannot be tasked for more than 3 sorties in a 24 hour period.

The reg in question governs ribbons, not GT duty day. AFAIK, outside of the expectation that GT3s will only be self sufficient for 24 hours, there is no duty day limit for GTMs. All this reg does is make it so that you are only eligible for 3 sorties a day for ribbon purposes.

ICS has some assumptions and guidelines built into it.....but you are correct there is no hard duty day AFAIK.

[Storm Chaser]

We've been discussing how much time constitutes a second sortie for ground personnel conducting "hazardous duties", but what about those performing "non-hazardous duties", i.e. mission base personnel? CAPR 39-1 says that they "may be credited with one sortie for each 8 hours of participation, but not to exceed two sorties for any 24-hour period." Does that mean that an ELT search mission that lasts 6 hours doesn't credit mission base personnel as it falls under the 8 hours specified in CAPR 39-3? And what constitutes two sorties in a day? 16 hours? Or anything after the first 8 hours?

[Eclipse]

It's up to the IC - we've always done at least one if you're signed in.

[husker]

To address the second point of Cadet Derasmo having qualifications that he is not age-appropriate for, he can train all day long but it won't count because he is still under 18. I had a similar issue that I finally argued to successful completion with the unit CC and LTC Long. Cadet High Drag was "told by someone at NESA that even though he was 15 he could act as GTL as long as there was a qualified SM along." Wrong. Big tall glass of nope. He continued to argue with both me and the unit CC until I showed him proof that he was wrong. Nothing he will "train" for will count once he hits 18. He will have to prove it on paper just like he was brand new, complete with new sorties as a GTL-T. End of story. Someone did him a great injustice by leading him on like that.

I do recall helping Garibaldi with his argument.  If you are under 18, you cannot train nor act as as a GTL.  Every year, I have cadets that want to train in the NESA GTL school who are just a few weeks (or even days) shy of 18.   I do not allow anyone into the school unless they meet the SQTR prerequisites, one of which is the age requirement.

Someone else in this thread brought up another issue that is germane to this discussion - the concept of "task overlaps."  In the current Ground Team curriculum, there are several of these issues - tasks that are explicitly required in multiple levels of ratings.  This has caused several issues, one of which is well documented here with the OP.  One of my goals for a new curriculum is to explicitly define tasks only at one level.

[Eclipse]

I would think that this could be fixed with programming.

Under 18 doesn't allow the task to be entered or go green.

The same should go for Aircrew tasks.

[lordmonar]

It is six of one....half dozen of the of the other.

Who cares if someone under age is getting signed off on tasks early?   What is the harm?   Until the two practical sorties ore completed he cannot be signed off on the rating.  Until all the prereqs are completed he cannot actually deploy in an aircraft or with a team as a trainee.

[Eclipse]

Again, integrity.  In this case of the system.

The regs are there "because", like anything else, if they were deemed inappropriate or incorrect, they
should be changed by NHQ.  Until then, they are what they are, and looking the other way
and saying "who cares" teaches the lesson that you can game the system and it's "OK".

They watch everything we do, and learn even when we don't expect them to.

[Walkman]

I'd wager we have a decent amount of older but not yet 18 year old cadets that have completed GTM 3,2,1 and are very competent in their abilities and want to keep moving up the GT ladder to GTL. I wouldn't start them on GTL specific tasks (noting the current overlap), but to keep them engaged, I'd put them in teaching/mentoring situations. Assign them as Asst. ESO/ESTO, or get have them be a primary GT instructor. There's also opportunites for them to plan training events and activities and lead them as well. Every year MIWG has Operation Wolverine which is a multi-day cadet run SAREX with SM oversight. Cadets pretty much run the whole event. This is a great oportunity for that truly high-speed 16 year old to sink their teeth into. We also host a week long SAR Academy where cadets can be staff instructors.

[lordmonar]

Well.....got my answer.

And it is worse then I thought.

Knowledgebase@capnhq.gov
Today at 6:32 AM
To:  lordmonar@yahoo.com


Recently you requested personal assistance from our on-line support center. Below is a summary of your request and our response.

If this issue is not resolved to your satisfaction, you may reopen it within the next 7 days.

Thank you for allowing us to be of service to you.

Subject
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAR Ribbon Sortie


Discussion Thread
---------------------------------------------------------------
Response Via Email(KB Manager) - 04/17/2014 06:32 AM
Per CAPR 39-3, personnel may be credited with one sortie for each 4 hours.  If a member performs hazardous ground duties for 4.1 hours they will receive credit for 1 sortie.  If they perform duties for less than 4 hours, they receive 0 sorties credit.

For non-hazardous ground duties, the requirement is 8 hours of participation.  Less than 8 hours does not receive credit.

c. Air Search and Rescue Ribbon. Participate in at least 10 search and rescue sorties. A bronze clasp is awarded for each additional 10 sorties. All sorties must be in support of an actual search and rescue mission authorized by competent authority.
(1) Aircrew Members. A bronze three-bladed propeller device will be worn centered on Air Search and Rescue Ribbons earned as aircrew members.
(2) Ground Personnel. Credit given will be computed on the basis of time spent on a mission and the nature of the duties performed.
(a) Ground personnel performing hazardous duties such as ground rescue or ground search, may be credited with one sortie for each 4 hours of actual participation, but not to exceed three sorties in any 24-hour period.
(b) Ground personnel performing non-hazardous duties, such as base support or staff functions, may be credited with one sortie for each 8 hours of participation, but not to exceed two sorties for any 24-hour period.

Auto-Response - 04/16/2014 03:26 PM
Response appended

Customer By Web Form (z zz) - 04/16/2014 03:26 PM
Basically the question is......how many sorties are counted for the SAR ribbon for a sortie that lasts 4.1 hours and 8.1 hours?


In the regulation the definition of a sortie is unclear.

If, for instance a Ground Team sorties for less then 4 hours....it counts as one sortie.

If the sortie last for longer then 4 hours then......when does the 2d and 3rd sortie start and end?

One interpretation is that the second sortie starts at 4 hours and continues until the 8th hour when the third sort begins and ends at 12 hours.

Another interpretation is that you do not get credit for the second sortie until the 8th hour and the third sortie is credited at the 12th hour.

Question Reference #140416-000002]
---------------------------------------------------------------
    Date Created: 04/16/2014 03:26 PM
    Last Updated: 04/17/2014 06:32 AM
          Status: Solved

So.......a sortie is either 2 hours, 4 hours or 8 hours.   The "take off and a landing" or "out and back" don't matter if they are less then 2 hours (for air crew) or 4 hours (for ground teams) then those sorties don't count.

Mull on that one for a second. 

Looks like I got to do paper work to get my SAR ribbon revoked as I know some of my sorties were less then the minimum time.  ......heck!  My find took less only 3 hours!  I guess I should have stopped for dinner on the way back to the squadron!

[Eclipse]

Per CAPR 39-3, personnel may be credited with one sortie for each 4 hours.  If a member performs hazardous ground duties for 4.1 hours they will receive credit for 1 sortie.  If they perform duties for less than 4 hours, they receive 0 sorties credit.

For non-hazardous ground duties, the requirement is 8 hours of participation.  Less than 8 hours does not receive credit.

What?  What's the basis for this?

Of COURSE they get one sortie.  IT'S A SORTIE!  The time factor is only there for when it's MORE then 4 hours per.

This is why the KB is such a mess - people without the authority, or who are misinformed, make interpretations that only commanders should be making.

Ridiculous.

Any sortie is a sortie, regardless of the timing.

[lordmonar]

 

And this is why CAPTALK can be soooooo much fun!

[Storm Chaser]

Of course, a sortie is a sortie even if under 4 hours; it just doesn't count for the SAR Ribbon. Just like an 8-hour sortie is still >one< sortie as recorded in WIMRS, but receives credit for two sorties for the ribbon.

Thanks lordmonar for posting this KB response.

[Eclipse]

So to be clear.  Sortie #1 for SAR counts whether it's 10 minutes of 4 hours.

The issue becomes #2 & 3 on the day.

Anything else has no support anywhere.

[Storm Chaser]

That's not what the KB answer said.

Per CAPR 39-3, personnel may be credited with one sortie for each 4 hours.  If a member performs hazardous ground duties for 4.1 hours they will receive credit for 1 sortie.  If they perform duties for less than 4 hours, they receive 0 sorties credit.

Credit for the ribbon requires a minimum of 4 hours, if I read this correctly.

[EMT-83]

KB answer is bogus. That's not what the regulation says.

Why does the KB even exist?

[Spaceman3750]

The good news is, the wing king approves that award so it's his discretion not NHQ until the Nat CC publishes guidance or changes the reg.

[Storm Chaser]

KB answer is bogus. That's not what the regulation says.

Why does the KB even exist?

That's exactly what the regulation says; KB just confirmed it. The fact that we don't like the answer doesn't make it less valid.

Ground personnel performing hazardous duties such as ground rescue or ground search, may be credited with one sortie for each 4 hours of actual participation, but not to exceed three sorties in any 24-hour period. (emphasis mine)

It doesn't say "one sortie for anything up to 4 hours", but for "each 4 hours".

[Spaceman3750]

My life was greatly simplified by deciding to not wear ribbons... This is just proof. If I was asked to or got a wild hair, I'd only wear the 3 most important to me - my comm comm, achievement award, and find.

[Eclipse]

That's not what the KB answer said.

Per CAPR 39-3, personnel may be credited with one sortie for each 4 hours.  If a member performs hazardous ground duties for 4.1 hours they will receive credit for 1 sortie.  If they perform duties for less than 4 hours, they receive 0 sorties credit.

Credit for the ribbon requires a minimum of 4 hours, if I read this correctly.

Where is the word "minimum"?

[JeffDG]

That's not what the KB answer said.

Per CAPR 39-3, personnel may be credited with one sortie for each 4 hours.  If a member performs hazardous ground duties for 4.1 hours they will receive credit for 1 sortie.  If they perform duties for less than 4 hours, they receive 0 sorties credit.

Credit for the ribbon requires a minimum of 4 hours, if I read this correctly.

Where is the word "minimum"?

It's clearly implied by the bold sentence.

[Eclipse]

That sentence is >not< in 60-3, and we have no idea who's "interpretation" this is.

What was sent in the KB is literally >not< what 39-3 says, and person writing that KB answer is just making it
up from whole cloth.

There is no "minimum 8 hours" for base staff, either. It is one per 8.  How many missions ever run 8 hours?

[JeffDG]

That sentence is >not< in 60-3, and we have no idea who's "interpretation" this is.

Not disagreeing with you there, but he was interpretting the KB answer.  The way the KB answer is phrased (whether you agree with it or not, if you read the answer for what it is), a 4 hour minimum is pretty clear.

That said, if 60-3 says something about credit for each 4 hours, that's not an unreasonable interpretation.  The traditional way to override that is to use the phrasing "4 hours or any portion thereof"

[Eclipse]

Which just emphasizes why the KB should quote regs only and not render opinions.

This just makes things worse.

That said, if 60-3 says something about credit for each 4 hours, that's not an unreasonable interpretation.  The traditional way to override that is to use the phrasing "4 hours or any portion thereof"

Agree.

One per distinct sortie is fair, or one for a specific time is fair, but you can't say the A/C's are wheels up and down, but
the Ground guys have a set time.

[Storm Chaser]

That's not what the KB answer said.

Per CAPR 39-3, personnel may be credited with one sortie for each 4 hours.  If a member performs hazardous ground duties for 4.1 hours they will receive credit for 1 sortie.  If they perform duties for less than 4 hours, they receive 0 sorties credit.

Credit for the ribbon requires a minimum of 4 hours, if I read this correctly.

Where is the word "minimum"?

Seriously? The KB answer says "If they perform duties for less than 4 hours, they receive 0 sorties credit." That's their clarification of CAPR 39-3's wording of "may be credited with one sortie for each 4 hours..." How else would you understand that answer?

[Storm Chaser]

That sentence is >not< in 60-3, and we have no idea who's "interpretation" this is.

What was sent in the KB is literally >not< what 39-3 says, and person writing that KB answer is just making it
up from whole cloth.

There is no "minimum 8 hours" for base staff, either. It is one per 8.  How many missions ever run 8 hours?

Now you're the one making things up. CAPR 39-3 clearly states that base support or staff functions "may be credited with one sortie for each 8 hours..." It doesn't say per 8 hours; that's your interpretation.

[Eclipse]

Seriously? The KB answer says "If they perform duties for less than 4 hours, they receive 0 sorties credit." That's their clarification of CAPR 39-3's wording of "may be credited with one sortie for each 4 hours..." How else would you understand that answer?

"They" don't get to "clarify" anything unless it's found in a reg.

Anything else requires the word "Commander" or "BOG" on your business card.

This answer has the same weight as this discussion - that's the ongoing problem with the KB. people
out side their authority making interpretations or sometimes answering based on their double-secret
knowledge of what might happen.

[Eclipse]

That sentence is >not< in 60-3, and we have no idea who's "interpretation" this is.

What was sent in the KB is literally >not< what 39-3 says, and person writing that KB answer is just making it
up from whole cloth.

There is no "minimum 8 hours" for base staff, either. It is one per 8.  How many missions ever run 8 hours?

Now you're the one making things up. CAPR 39-3 clearly states that base support or staff functions "may be credited with one sortie for each 8 hours..." It doesn't say per 8 hours; that's your interpretation.

I think we're agreeing.

[Storm Chaser]

Seriously? The KB answer says "If they perform duties for less than 4 hours, they receive 0 sorties credit." That's their clarification of CAPR 39-3's wording of "may be credited with one sortie for each 4 hours..." How else would you understand that answer?

"They" don't get to "clarify" anything unless it's found in a reg.

Fair enough. That said, the people answering these questions are subject matter experts at NHQ and should have the answers or, at least, know where to find them.

Anything else requires the word "Commander" or "BOG" on your business card.

I partially disagree with you here. First, the BoG is not involved in writing most CAP regulations, so I don't know how much clarification they would be able to provide, short of contacting the appropriate NHQ staff member for the answers. Second, the only "commander" that can provide a definite answer to any CAP regulation is the National Commander. Commanders at any other level would only be able to offer their interpretation, which would only be applicable to or enforceable in their particular headquarters and subordinate units.

This answer has the same weight as this discussion - that's the ongoing problem with the KB. people out side their authority making interpretations or sometimes answering based on their double-secret knowledge of what might happen.

Again, fair enough. Then again, when you offer your own interpretation of a regulation, you're usually very adamant that yours is the right one, even if many others disagree. Now, I recognize that you have a lot of experience and knowledge, but if I'm going to adhere to someone's interpretation of a regulation, who should that person be? A wing staff member from another wing? Or a NHQ staff member? No disrespect, but the NHQ staff member's clarification on a reg is going to carry more weight than that of a wing staff officer or director.

[EMT-83]

[Snip] Now, I recognize that you have a lot of experience and knowledge, but if I'm going to adhere to someone's interpretation of a regulation, who should that person be? A wing staff member from another wing? Or a NHQ staff member? No disrespect, but the NHQ staff member's clarification on a reg is going to carry more weight than that of a wing staff officer or director.

It shouldn't. An NHQ staff member is not within your chain of command. Their opinion on a regulation really doesn't carry any weight at all.

For what it's worth, I've had NHQ staff members give me answers seemingly out of thin air, not supported by any regulation.

[Storm Chaser]

[Snip] Now, I recognize that you have a lot of experience and knowledge, but if I'm going to adhere to someone's interpretation of a regulation, who should that person be? A wing staff member from another wing? Or a NHQ staff member? No disrespect, but the NHQ staff member's clarification on a reg is going to carry more weight than that of a wing staff officer or director.

It shouldn't. An NHQ staff member is not within your chain of command. Their opinion on a regulation really doesn't carry any weight at all.

For what it's worth, I've had NHQ staff members give me answers seemingly out of thin air, not supported by any regulation.

If the OPR of a regulation can't provide clarification on the text of such regulation, then we're really in trouble. We've had several experienced members, from different levels in the organization and multiple ratings and qualifications, come up with different interpretations of the text regarding the criteria for earning this ribbon. Who's right then? Who should we listen to? Everyone is reading the same regulation. If we want to get technical, then only the National Commander would be able to give definite guidance on a CAP regulation. While wing commanders can provide guidance within their wings (there are 52!), such guidance would only apply to their particular wings. And how many wing commanders have such guidance in writing? So what then? We leave it up to wing staff to decide what qualifies and what doesn't? How is that better than getting guidance from NHQ? The bottom line is that we have a ribbon that no one here knows for sure what's required to earn it. So instead of seeking guidance from NHQ, we'll leave it up to the 52 wings to decide how they want to interpret this regulation. Yes... that's better.

[a2capt]

.. and there is nothing wrong with said individuals showing interest, perhaps even attending classroom type training on these ratings, with the explicit understanding that no evaluation is going to take place until such a time when the member is eligible for the rating.

That said, if they pass their evaluation on day one of eligibility, then so be it, short of mission participations, there's nothing precluding knowledge transfer prior to reaching the age.

[Eclipse]

I'm pretty much in agreement here.

I speak with authority because I have relevent experience and knowledge of the topic.  As far as I'm concerned,
when I render an opinion, it's fact until otherwise disputed in a verifiable way.  Someone else's opinion or interpretation
isn't going to sway mine unless I've made a contextual error, or missed something.  That posture is
"confidence" when yo agree with me, and "arrogance" when you don't. 

Now, with that said, opinions have zero weight outside a person's authority, which is why its so funny
when people get wrapped around the axle.  Unless you happen to be a subordinate of mine in a respect
relevent to the topic, my opinion may help inform you or guide you, but it doesn't bind you.

Take the discussion about slicing up the Recruiter ribbon.  The answer, as far as I am concerned, is "no".
That "no" is not, in my opinion, "gray", based on the totality of the situation, and in my opinion to think
otherwise is ribbon trolling.  Since the text is silent on this, that's the answer within my sphere.
(A sphere, which for the time being is essentially zero.)  You're free to accept that, use it to inform your
own opinion, or ignore it completely, but until someone with more brass then me, and who has the authority
to make the decision says otherwise, it's decided. 

That goes for pretty much anything not in a properly approved regulation, pamphlet, or similar document.

An SME not in the chain rendering an opinion or interpretation has zero authority to be making those assertions.
They may be the most informed person on the topic, have insight into coming changes, and will be the "go to guy"
when a relevent commander needs an opinion, but until it's written and approved, it's just one opinion.
The same goes for the esteemed board members and national staff who participate here, or when you are speaking with
them face to face.

A huge problem with relying on the KB and/or staff in these cases is that in areas that are "gray", it is likely
gray on purpose, either by omission or commission.  In other words, no one wants to make some people sad,
so they choose to look the other way and "hope for the best".   I can't tell you how many times I have
sent a message to the KB as well as discussed the same issue with National staffers, only to get
conflicting answers form both sides, which then just makes things worse.

If my Wing CC directs me to "Ask the NHQ OPR on this and do what they say.",  then those are my marching orders.
Otherwise, it stays gray.

CAP has a very specific process for publishing and changing regulations, and despite the fact that in recent years
they have chosen to largely ignore that process and instead govern via ICL, etc., I think we'd all agree that CAPTalk, the KB, random staff,
or "over coffee with the BOG" are not on that list for "ways to update things".  It's that exact ting that
allows fiefdoms and the GOB network to continue to flourish - granting someone else power they do't actually
have because yo choose to abdicate the decision.

Lord, JeffDG, and others and I go toe-to-toe on minutia and gray areas, but in the end, it's all just talk since
we aren't in each other's AOR.  If we were, in either direction, healthy disagreements are fine, but ultimately
the person in the room with the highest-level Commander "Power Up" on their business card gets to make the decision.

And those people are effectively the only people who can issue directives, opinions, and change regulations.

[Storm Chaser]

Wing staff officers are >not< in the chain of command either and have no authority to establish policy or clarify any regulation beyond providing an opinion, even if informed.

"They" don't get to "clarify" anything unless it's found in a reg.

Anything else requires the word "Commander" or "BOG" on your business card.

[Eclipse]

Wing staff officers are >not< in the chain of command either and have no authority to establish policy or clarify any regulation beyond providing an opinion, even if informed.

"They" don't get to "clarify" anything unless it's found in a reg.

Anything else requires the word "Commander" or "BOG" on your business card.

100% agree.  I fought that battle for years as a commander, and in my time as a wing staffer
everything was "approved by" or "for" the commander.  Staff do not direct action.

[Archer]

.. and there is nothing wrong with said individuals showing interest, perhaps even attending classroom type training on these ratings, with the explicit understanding that no evaluation is going to take place until such a time when the member is eligible for the rating.

That said, if they pass their evaluation on day one of eligibility, then so be it, short of mission participations, there's nothing precluding knowledge transfer prior to reaching the age.

Who said it is wrong?

[lordmonar]

.. and there is nothing wrong with said individuals showing interest, perhaps even attending classroom type training on these ratings, with the explicit understanding that no evaluation is going to take place until such a time when the member is eligible for the rating.

That said, if they pass their evaluation on day one of eligibility, then so be it, short of mission participations, there's nothing precluding knowledge transfer prior to reaching the age.

Who said it is wrong?

Eclipse.

[Storm Chaser]

The OP and cadet in question has GTL-specific tasks signed off (not talking about overlaps), to include both GTL exercise participation. This is clearly prohibited in CAPR 60-3. His skills evaluator for both exercise participation is a GBD, AOBD and PSC, to name a few, and should know better.

[Eclipse]

.. and there is nothing wrong with said individuals showing interest, perhaps even attending classroom type training on these ratings, with the explicit understanding that no evaluation is going to take place until such a time when the member is eligible for the rating.

That said, if they pass their evaluation on day one of eligibility, then so be it, short of mission participations, there's nothing precluding knowledge transfer prior to reaching the age.

Who said it is wrong?

Eclipse.

Transfer all the knowledge you like, whenever you like, that helps everyone.

You can't get anything signed off, or even considered for approval, until you are 18.

Is it possible a cadet would walk in the door on his 18th birthday, have his CC consider and approve the pre-reqs, then
go off and start tasking on the fam/prep, finish that, get it approved by his CC, then sign into a mission
and work on the advanced stuff (yes, you can get Advanced tasks done before fam/prep is done, but you can't be signed into
a mission), and complete two sorties in a single day?

Possible, yes.  Likely, no.  And I would hazard those taskings are less then "comprehensive" - no one aces everything
on the first try.

[Spaceman3750]

Eclipse, isn't eServices now disallowing advanced tasks before fam? I don't even offer it as an option - you will get fam done and get trainee approved before we move on.

[Eclipse]

Eclipse, isn't eServices now disallowing advanced tasks before fam?

No, in fact it is so "broken" that it treats CC approvals as simple tasks with no dependencies (at least the last time I checked).

We've had CC's approving FAM/Prep before the tasks were done.

It's been reported to the HD with no response.

[Storm Chaser]

Some wings won't accept advanced tasks prior to all prerequisites, Fam & Prep and commander approvals being completed.

[a2capt]

..and I've had to deal with members using that loophole by getting someone less familiar with the process to "do them a favor and approve this.." "because the ESO is busy right now".

Right. Eventually it gets kicked back, and the ESO gets blamed for being a blocker to progress.

[Eclipse]

^ Yep - BTDT.  I get to be the roadblock for enforcing basic program tenants which in this day and age should be
handled by software.  Basic If/Then statements that a first year CS student can handle still escape OPS Quals.

[sardak]

^^^Ditto. The process gets ignored, validations and approvals made, SQTR gets all the way to Wing where Wing ES rejects it, and then takes the hit for blocking progress. Happens constantly.

As for it being controlled by the software, absolutely it should be.  The answer that NHQ gives us every time as to why the software doesn't, is because commanders need flexibility.

Mike

[a2capt]

..and flexibility can certainly be integrated into the system in such ways that the UI typically is consistent with the regulations, and overrides have to be explicitly done, and explained, so that as the request makes it's way forward, those in the chain can see that there are exceptions on this request that need to be justified.

[RogueLeader]

Also, according to this year's FB page, if you are not a returning beret you can still apply as a Flight Commander. Obviously preference goes to returning berets however what are the odds of this happening? Thank you for your time.

It all depends on your TAC and how he/she wishes to organize the Flight.  Last year, my flight (Hotel Flight) had both Flight Commander and Assistant were not Returning Berets (tm). I did have a Returning Beret (tm) in flight.  he wasn't happy about it.  He thought that just because he was a Returning Beret (tm) made him the defacto choice for Flight/CC despite what other qualifications the other personnel held that in my mind where more important, like advanced GTM Skills.  He wasn't happy, and tried jumping the Chain of Command on me.  Not a smart move.