What Is Going On With Replacing 2130D???

[lordmonar]

Lord - your arguments are salient, but that doesn't mean we should hold up progression because of delays in the program - that's the kind of thing that
loses members. 

The services requirements and discussions with the approver are much more important then the test ever was, and considering that the
replacement will likely be an online, open-book situation, anyway, assuming there is a test at all, I don't really see the issue.

Waiving the requirement is the only logical / fair answer, at least this decision, made 4-5 years ago, is at least starting to be recognized officially
by wings.  I would be very interested in the logic from any wing that refuses to waive this.

??

I am not saying we need to hold up progression....just the opposite.  With out clear guidance from NHQ the existing rules are holding up people....as noted by ProdigalJim.
Without guidance from NHQ it is up to each wing to decide what training is need....thereby destroying any continuity in training across the wings.

Of all the things CAP does right.....this sort of thing is not one of them. 213D has been off the books for how long now? (at least 2 years).....we have a thread that has NHQ promising a new course back in Jan 2010!

NHQ has done the same thing with the new ICUT course.....that's been in the works even longer.

If they don't have time to rewrite the course.....take the time to rewrite the reg/pamplet so we can get on with life.
[/rant]

[Eclipse]

Since it would take all of 5 minutes to write an ICL eliminating this requirement (same thing is needed in the PAO specialty track BTW) there is no reason not to do it.

Another T-Shirt?

It would also take 5 minutes to strikeout the verbiage in the pamphlet itself, and then unstrike it when there's a test. In a lot of ways we just refuse to
use the tools of technology we have in the way they are intended.   We might have everything online, but like a lot of government agencies, we still
live within a "paper paradigm".

Changes and fixes like this should have an electronic path to approval, whether that means an email trail or something more formal.
In this case it isn't even an operational or liability issue, wince being an ESO-Tech doesn't mean you're an operator of any kind (in and of itself).

[SARDOC]

The Specialty Track Pamphlets are identified by regulation as study guides in CAPR 50-17 and CAPR 5-4 definitions list-"Pamphlets"  are nondirective, informative, "how-to" type publications that may include suggested methods and techniques for implementing CAP policies.

In that sentence you are stating that the pamphlets do not have to be followed as written. 

Policy changes to regulations should be contained in ICLs.  Since it would take all of 5 minutes to write an ICL eliminating this requirement (same thing is needed in the PAO specialty track BTW) there is no reason not to do it.

That sentence isn't me saying that the Pamphlets do not have to be followed as written, it's the Regulation's interpretation of Pamphlets as found in CAPR 50-17 and CAPR 5-4 respectively.  Neither regulation requires the use but recommends these study guides and suggested methods and techniques.  Nothing in the regulations make the pamphlets obligatory...Just Standard operating guidelines.  Just because the usual practice is to read them as if they were law, doesn't make them so.  They are guidelines, guidelines by definition are flexible to allow variances like this in order to accomplish our mission. 

According to regulation an Interim Change Letter (ICL) would be inappropriate in this case.  Paraphrasing, There is not state of Emergency, unforeseen threat to life or property or other contingency that requires an immediate change of policy. Especially when the regulations already allows for the guidelines to a flexible.  No Regulation needs to be changed.  I know ICL's have never traditionally been used correctly and have been left in perpetuity incorrectly.  It doesn't mean we have to keep repeating the mistakes of the past.

[SARDOC]

I am not saying we need to hold up progression....just the opposite.  With out clear guidance from NHQ the existing rules are holding up people....as noted by ProdigalJim.
Without guidance from NHQ it is up to each wing to decide what training is need....thereby destroying any continuity in training across the wings.

Of all the things CAP does right.....this sort of thing is not one of them. 213D has been off the books for how long now? (at least 2 years).....we have a thread that has NHQ promising a new course back in Jan 2010!

NHQ has done the same thing with the new ICUT course.....that's been in the works even longer.

If they don't have time to rewrite the course.....take the time to rewrite the reg/pamplet so we can get on with life.
[/rant]

I agree the purpose here is to allow people to progress with their professional development.  This is not an Emergency Services operation qualification.  Without NHQ guidance there is a risk of inconsistencies among the wings, but that doesn't mean the wings should have to be micromanaged to every small detail.  And it's not "Destroying" the continuity of training, it's actually providing a reasonable alternative and I would argue provide better training than that which was found in the old test.

The Air Force accepted new student enrollment into 213D until October 1, 2011.  Current students have until September 30, 2012 to complete the course.  So the Course is still not off the books.  We still have people taking this course.

A Rewrite of the pamphlet is in order and would end the discussions, but no regulations need to be changed to implement this change.

[ProdigalJim]

I've gotta say that I'm very pleased with the way VAWG is handling it. A very reasonable waiver procedure, an attempt to ensure some remaining minimum standards, plus provision to "catch up" when the new coursework is finally available.

IMHO the black eye here goes to NHQ for not getting its act together on replacing the course. I, for one, am a big fan of rigorous, standardized training, so that even if you don't know the person you're thrown in with, you know the qual and can make some reasonable assumptions about that person's basic competence when things heat up. It's not as if the deadline was a surprise and snuck up on them...

By the by, Col. Carter is a big ES guy, very committed, so I'm sure that helped here.

[RiverAux]

The Specialty Track Pamphlets are identified by regulation as study guides in CAPR 50-17 and CAPR 5-4 definitions list-"Pamphlets"  are nondirective, informative, "how-to" type publications that may include suggested methods and techniques for implementing CAP policies.

In that sentence you are stating that the pamphlets do not have to be followed as written. 

Policy changes to regulations should be contained in ICLs.  Since it would take all of 5 minutes to write an ICL eliminating this requirement (same thing is needed in the PAO specialty track BTW) there is no reason not to do it.

That sentence isn't me saying that the Pamphlets do not have to be followed as written, it's the Regulation's interpretation of Pamphlets as found in CAPR 50-17 and CAPR 5-4 respectively.  Neither regulation requires the use but recommends these study guides and suggested methods and techniques.  Nothing in the regulations make the pamphlets obligatory...Just Standard operating guidelines.  Just because the usual practice is to read them as if they were law, doesn't make them so.  They are guidelines, guidelines by definition are flexible to allow variances like this in order to accomplish our mission. 

You can't have it both ways.  On the one hand you're saying that the pamphlets do not have to be followed but when I point out that if this is the case that gives the CC the ability to ignore them as they choose.  No matter whether it is called a regulation, manual, or pamphlet, it indicates what CAP wants done and unless it specifically gives someone flexibility, you must do it as written. 

Therefore, if a situation arises such as this ICLs can be issued using this part of the ICL definition:

or other contingencies that may require prompt action may result in an interim change letter being issued outlining immediate policies.

Discontinuation by the AF of a course that CAP has utilized for years woudl seem to fall into that category.

Of course, I'd be perfectly happy with them updating the pamphlet, which also would only take 5 minutes of work. 

[SARDOC]

The Specialty Track Pamphlets are identified by regulation as study guides in CAPR 50-17 and CAPR 5-4 definitions list-"Pamphlets"  are nondirective, informative, "how-to" type publications that may include suggested methods and techniques for implementing CAP policies.

In that sentence you are stating that the pamphlets do not have to be followed as written. 

Policy changes to regulations should be contained in ICLs.  Since it would take all of 5 minutes to write an ICL eliminating this requirement (same thing is needed in the PAO specialty track BTW) there is no reason not to do it.

That sentence isn't me saying that the Pamphlets do not have to be followed as written, it's the Regulation's interpretation of Pamphlets as found in CAPR 50-17 and CAPR 5-4 respectively.  Neither regulation requires the use but recommends these study guides and suggested methods and techniques.  Nothing in the regulations make the pamphlets obligatory...Just Standard operating guidelines.  Just because the usual practice is to read them as if they were law, doesn't make them so.  They are guidelines, guidelines by definition are flexible to allow variances like this in order to accomplish our mission. 

You can't have it both ways.  On the one hand you're saying that the pamphlets do not have to be followed but when I point out that if this is the case that gives the CC the ability to ignore them as they choose.  No matter whether it is called a regulation, manual, or pamphlet, it indicates what CAP wants done and unless it specifically gives someone flexibility, you must do it as written. 

Therefore, if a situation arises such as this ICLs can be issued using this part of the ICL definition:

or other contingencies that may require prompt action may result in an interim change letter being issued outlining immediate policies.

Discontinuation by the AF of a course that CAP has utilized for years woudl seem to fall into that category.

Of course, I'd be perfectly happy with them updating the pamphlet, which also would only take 5 minutes of work.

I don't see how I'm having things both ways.  I think the problem is what constitutes a "guideline".  My statement was paraphrasing regulations.

i. "Pamphlets"  are nondirective, informative, "how-to" type publications that may
include suggested methods and techniques for implementing CAP policies.

And

CAP presents study material in
pamphlets called Specialty Track Study Guides.

50-17 also goes on to say that this is a self Study program but that the commander should assign and mentor.  When the PDO and squadron commander determine the required proficiency has been achieved that the rating should be awarded.  It sounds like it's up to the PDO and the CC to determine what the required proficiency is.  If they choose a strict interpretation of a Non Directive study guide, but the problem here is we have had Several CC's who have denied members from progressing because it says that they must take the AFIADL 213D Course.  We have some commanders that state that since the course is not available that they will approve it.  Units 5 miles apart have different policies.  There will be those in the crowd that will say even after CAP comes out with the new course, that the CAPP 213 still reads that in order to get the technician rating you must take 213D and that CAPP 213 does not allow for alternative courses and that the CC's who are doing so are violating regulations...and that's just not true.  The CAP course will be an alternative to 213D, Just as right now our wing is providing a structured alternative in the interim during the timeframe during which neither course is offered.  Keeping the Spirit of the guidelines.  Nobody is acting arbitrarily or capriciously. 

It should be assumed that Commander making these decisions are doing so in the best interests of the Corporation consistent with our Core Values and dedicated mission.  If a Commander violates that trust they should be removed or counseled at a minimum.  Not everything needs to be micromanaged and written in a regulation, some decisions are made below the National Level.  That's how we train the future leaders of our organization.

[SARDOC]

I've gotta say that I'm very pleased with the way VAWG is handling it. A very reasonable waiver procedure, an attempt to ensure some remaining minimum standards, plus provision to "catch up" when the new coursework is finally available.

IMHO the black eye here goes to NHQ for not getting its act together on replacing the course. I, for one, am a big fan of rigorous, standardized training, so that even if you don't know the person you're thrown in with, you know the qual and can make some reasonable assumptions about that person's basic competence when things heat up. It's not as if the deadline was a surprise and snuck up on them...

By the by, Col. Carter is a big ES guy, very committed, so I'm sure that helped here.

Thanks Jim.  I absolutely agree.  I believe Colonel Carter's suggestions actually improve how this is being done in Virginia.  Hopefully either this waiver process is adopted in other wings or that NHQ makes the move to push this out everywhere.  I believe the Wing Commander is definitely more proactive than we've had in quite some time. 

[Private Investigator]

I need to take the ES Officer class...

Maybe I should go train in another speciality, just so I can get Technician and get promoted.

I keep checking with the Knowledgebase,

1) You should contact your peers and asked what they did. I bet they got it waived. Its a Catch-22 and most CAP leaders who have been around know that.

2) Another six months to a year? If you have done what you need to in as ESO you should get Tech and 1st Lt.

3) Get away from the computer and call other Units if you do not have anyone in your Squadron who knows anything.

I am not sure how big your Unit is. But we have a ESO, Deputy ESO and four Assistant ESO. You should really go to the ES forum.

http://captalk.net/index.php?board=9.0

[SARDOC]

^^^  if you read ProdigalJim's post on December 17th, you'll see that there is a waiver process in place in his wing.

[Private Investigator]

^^^  if you read ProdigalJim's post on December 17th, you'll see that there is a waiver process in place in his wing.

Which one?

Anyways my answer was really cool.   

[Eclipse]

This seems to be the most recent discussion of the issue.

I noticed this today on NHQ's site.  It would appear the 213-D has been officially waived, with no need for Wing-specific waivers.

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/emergency_services/operations_support/education_and_training/eso_training.cfm

"The AFIADL Course 02130D, Introduction to Emergency Services, required for completion of the Emergency Services Officer specialty track, CAPP 213, was officially closed and no new enrollments are being accepted.

A new online course for CAP Emergency Services Officers was originally expected to be released with the closing of the AFIADL course, but due to unforeseen issues the release has been delayed.  This course is expected to be released in conjunction with the combined CAPR 60-3 and CAPR 60-6 in 2013.

Modules for the training will be released here as they are available.  We apologize for the delay. Until further notice, this course requirement is waived.  Once the new regulation and course is released, CAPP 213 will be updated accordingly to require this course if not taken previously in each level of the specialty track."

[ProdigalJim]

That's great! I'm getting the sense that a lot of long-standing logjams, this being only one of them, are finally getting cleared. Good for them!

When did this come out? I was on eServices around 2:30 Eastern and didn't see it then.

[Eclipse]

No idea.

I was answering a question for someone from my wing and ready to send a link to our waiver
and just did a random search which brought up that page.

[RiverAux]

Thought it had been waived for the past two years.  See earlier in the thread.

[Eclipse]

Thought it had been waived for the past two years.  See earlier in the thread.

It was, but no matter what we posted, there were still some wings that refused to accept it unless John D personally had them over for coffee.