Mandating ES participation in order to promote

[RiverAux]

Somehow I failed to notice the creeping trend in CAP that requires those interested in advancing beyond the Technician level to participate in ES programs.  This has popped up most recently in the PAO specialty track which requires an unprecedented new number of in-residence non-CAP training courses in order to get up to Master level.  However, it is also present in other specialties (Chaplains need to become Mission Chaplains, Comm officers need to become Mission Radio operator, etc.). 

Now, I'm a major fan of ES and it is the only reason I joined the program in the first place.  However, I just don't see the need to force people into it that are really interested in other aspects of our program. 

I'm guessing that this is part of CAP's apparent efforts to make it more difficult to get promoted. 

You know, I really can get behind increasing the requirements to do various ES jobs as you really are dealing with people's lives -- both of CAP members and those we're trying to help.  But, I just don't see the reason to link ES participation to promotion in our current system.

Perhaps I should take heart that CAP is finally moving towards something that I proposed a long time ago -- making CAP rank be based on ES training.  http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1425.msg20552#msg20552  I think if they were doing it the way I proposed it, I would be happier, but not sure I like their approach.

[SARDOC]

I know for the Public Affairs Officer, that the idea is that the Public Affairs officer with the experience they get from media relations, incorporated with an ES environment should be a Public Information Officer.  The process is similar when conducting Press Releases and Public Service Announcements.  This is a great experience blend.

I recently had a  SAREX involving multiple wings and the incident PIO was another Wing's Public Affairs person.  I was very happy to see that in his role as the Exercise PIO, he issued a real press release (IC Approved) to local media outlets.  Two media outlets showed up at base ops with camera's for the public interest story.  It's very nice to see when that kind of thing works.

The ES requirement for the Safety Officer specialty tracks have required training as a Mission Safety Officer as far back as I can remember.

[JeffDG]

The ES requirement for the Safety Officer specialty tracks have required training as a Mission Safety Officer as far back as I can remember.

Same with Comm...the MRO/CUL requirement has been there for some time for Senior/Master levels.

[lordmonar]

Nothing wrong with not being interested with the other CAP missions.

But really......if you want to claim to be a MASTER Level of XYZ specialty.....should you not at least have some experience with all aspects of that specialty as it applies to all of CAP's missions?

We had this discussion on the PAO thread.

[Eclipse]

But really......if you want to claim to be a MASTER Level of XYZ specialty.....should you not at least have some experience with all aspects of that specialty as it applies to all of CAP's missions?

Agreed.

CAP's mission is comprehensive and far reaching. It's dying a heat death because members are allowed to specialize and treat that
mission like a menu, limiting participation, skewing manpower assessments, and generally just letting people do "whatever".

This is a small step in the right direction.

[ZigZag911]

Agreed, this is a good idea...too many of our people are over-specialized.

Now, the next thing I'd like to see is a requirement for involvement in the cadet program -- beyond orientation flights -- for the various Operations related specialties, as well.

Let's balance things out across the board, at least with "master" rated members.

[RiverAux]

Does the Air Force make pilots learn how to analyze signals intelligence? 

Folks, there is a vast difference between having people be "familiar" with all aspects of the CAP program and requiring them to become actively involved in all areas of the program to promote. 

Do we also want everyone to become a Chaplain so as to understand what those Chaplains that augment the AF are doing?  Thats a legit CAP mission. 

Does the full-time teacher who just loves AEO need to be kept at a low rank because he doesn't have any interest in doing ES activities? 

Sure, upper ranking CAP members should know about the various things that CAP does, but that doesn't mean that they need to know the nuts and bolts of which forms need to be filled out to carry out their duties. 

I assume that anyone in favor of linking CAP ES experience to professional development is also in favor of eliminating all advanced promotions for former military officers.  After all, in most cases they know nothing about either the CAP specialty or the related CAP ES qualification.  If we expect people in off the street to know these things before being promoted, then everyone should follow that rule.
 

[Eclipse]

Sure, upper ranking CAP members should know about the various things that CAP does, but that doesn't mean that they need to know the nuts and bolts of which forms need to be filled out to carry out their duties. 

Yes, it actually does, and the fact that we have members with eagles who have never held a command position in CAP
before their ascension is one of the core problems in CAP.

I assume that anyone in favor of linking CAP ES experience to professional development is also in favor of eliminating all advanced promotions for former military officers.

Yep, said as much before, but further, all advanced promotion for EVERYONE>

Do something relevent to CAP, in CAP, get promoted.

Also, Chaplain augmentation is a function, not a mission.

[RiverAux]

Also, Chaplain augmentation is a function, not a mission.

Well, you're partially right.  It is a function of one of our missions -- to provide noncombat support to the AF. 

Sure, upper ranking CAP members should know about the various things that CAP does, but that doesn't mean that they need to know the nuts and bolts of which forms need to be filled out to carry out their duties. 

Yes, it actually does, and the fact that we have members with eagles who have never held a command position in CAP
before their ascension is one of the core problems in CAP.

Keep in mind that this ES requirement is not at all equal across all PD.  You can progress through several tracks that have no ES equivalency at all, while others have a lot.  How is it right to require this extra work in an area that the member may or may not be interested in pursuing for some members, but not others?  Should we develop a mission historian ES specialty that requires a 2-3 week internship at the national archives before someone can become a senior level historian? 

[lordmonar]

Does the Air Force make pilots learn how to analyze signals intelligence?

No....but they do make them learn every mission that their aircraft is capable of doing....even if they only do one of them at their current squadron.  No one is asking a Legal Officer to learn how to do logistics, or to be a cadet test proctor.    But if their is some Cadet Programs aspect of their job....then they should know it if they consider themselves to be MASTER level Legal Officers.

Folks, there is a vast difference between having people be "familiar" with all aspects of the CAP program and requiring them to become actively involved in all areas of the program to promote.

Now you have to define "actively" involved....vs "familiar".   Asking a Chaplain to get his Mission Chaplain rating is not asking him to get "actively" involved....he does the training does his two sorties/missions and he's got his ticket punched.

Do we also want everyone to become a Chaplain so as to understand what those Chaplains that augment the AF are doing?  Thats a legit CAP mission. 

Does the full-time teacher who just loves AEO need to be kept at a low rank because he doesn't have any interest in doing ES activities?

If AE has some aspect to ES....then yes...he should know the ES portion of his job.   If not then no.    The AEO should have some knowledge of the cadet, the senior and the external AE program.

Sure, upper ranking CAP members should know about the various things that CAP does, but that doesn't mean that they need to know the nuts and bolts of which forms need to be filled out to carry out their duties.

If they are master rated in the specialty...they most certainly need to know the nuts and bolts of which forms they need to do their duties.

I assume that anyone in favor of linking CAP ES experience to professional development is also in favor of eliminating all advanced promotions for former military officers.  After all, in most cases they know nothing about either the CAP specialty or the related CAP ES qualification.  If we expect people in off the street to know these things before being promoted, then everyone should follow that rule.

I'm in favor of making people with advanced promotions get the PD training for their rank in a reasonable amount of time.
We don't expect people "off the street" to know all this stuff.   We expect them to learn it.  We expect them to lean all of it....as the move up the PD ladder.

[Eclipse]

Making extremes won't help the argument.

The ES requirements are natural extensions of the real-world duties of the staff jobs these specialties require.
If you want the job, that's the duty.  Don't want it, chose something else.

Seriously, anyone joining CAP who isn't interested in either cadets or ES is wasting their time and CAP's.

That's what CAP is about.  Anything else is ancillary support of those very functions.  The rest is not
enough of a percentage of the normal course to be in issue or an influence.

The tangential to this is the assumption anyone >needs< to move up the ladder if they aren't interested in
the total CAP.  Field grade officers should be CAP leaders, not seat fillers or specialists.  Not interested?
no problem, we still need your help, and not being a Major won't impede your ability one iota.

Want those oaks?  Then you need to understand CAP as a whole, not a piece.

[LSThiker]

Do we also want everyone to become a Chaplain so as to understand what those Chaplains that augment the AF are doing?  Thats a legit CAP mission. 

Does the full-time teacher who just loves AEO need to be kept at a low rank because he doesn't have any interest in doing ES activities? 

I think you are crossing the streams.  For one there is no such thing as a Mission AEO, thus a master AE rating would not require an ES specialty rating.  The same is true for say Historian.  No mission historian position exists.  These people should, of course, be familiar with ES.  However, for logistics, there is a mission logistics officer.  Thus, a master level LG should know the mission logistics officer position.  The same is true for Chaplains, PAOs, communications, etc. 

[Eclipse]

Excellent point.

[SARDOC]

Do we also want everyone to become a Chaplain so as to understand what those Chaplains that augment the AF are doing?  Thats a legit CAP mission. 

Does the full-time teacher who just loves AEO need to be kept at a low rank because he doesn't have any interest in doing ES activities? 

I think you are crossing the streams.  For one there is no such thing as a Mission AEO, thus a master AE rating would not require an ES specialty rating.  The same is true for say Historian.  No mission historian position exists.  These people should, of course, be familiar with ES.  However, for logistics, there is a mission logistics officer.  Thus, a master level LG should know the mission logistics officer position.  The same is true for Chaplains, PAOs, communications, etc.

Well, it depends on how down in the details that you get.  A historian may be good for a Documentation Unit Leader especially when it comes to having to use a Post Incident Archive.  Keeping records is important to Historians as well.

That's the closest thing to an analogy I could get.  I always think that AE or Historian, everyone should at least me able to serve as a Mission Staff Assistant.  Watching History in the making sometimes...or seeing the benefit of Citizens getting a Good Aerospace Education with the Practical Applications of SAR.  Some really technically oriented AEO might actually see the benefit of the Imagery that we provide during DR missions. (I know it's a stretch, but I'm trying)

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Again, this strikes me as the mindset too many members of our organisation have: all ES, all the time.

I must be one of the .00000000000001% who did not join for ES.  I joined because I was interested in AE and providing a safe place for young people (something I did not have).

However, try doing AE to a flying club senior squadron who, if it does not relate to the nuts and bolts of "their" plane, completely tune you out.

Is CAP moving toward an all, or nearly all, organisation of Pilots, Observers, Scanners and Ground Team members, with the other speciality tracks just "secondary?"

[arajca]

I think (yea, bad habit) they're trying to get folks to fill the rest of the incident positions. When I got my LSC initially, I was the only non-IC LSC in the wing. All the others got it because ICs were given it by default as IC, even they never trained or were qualified for it.

Comm has always had an ES requirement as ES has been a major user of Comm.

I don't see it as the All-ES-All-the-Time folks trying to influence the rest, but if you're going to claim mastery in a particular track and there is a one or more of CAP's missions where you are clueless about the functions that are directly related to your track, have you truly mastered the track?

Is there an ES function directly related to AE? I don't see one. Are there sme that are tangently related to AE? Sure. Is ES required for the Master AEO rating? No.

[Storm Chaser]

Does the Air Force make pilots learn how to analyze signals intelligence? 

No, but they do make PAOs learn how to be PIOs. Chaplains also learn how to operate in a mission environment. The same goes for staff safety officers, plans officers, logistics officers, finance officers, etc. Every staff officer/NCO/airman is trained to operate in a mission environment and in support of operational missions. So, this is not really a valid argument.

[Storm Chaser]

Making extremes won't help the argument.

The ES requirements are natural extensions of the real-world duties of the staff jobs these specialties require.
If you want the job, that's the duty.  Don't want it, chose something else.

Seriously, anyone joining CAP who isn't interested in either cadets or ES is wasting their time and CAP's.

That's what CAP is about.  Anything else is ancillary support of those very functions.  The rest is not
enough of a percentage of the normal course to be in issue or an influence.

The tangential to this is the assumption anyone >needs< to move up the ladder if they aren't interested in
the total CAP.  Field grade officers should be CAP leaders, not seat fillers or specialists.  Not interested?
no problem, we still need your help, and not being a Major won't impede your ability one iota.

Want those oaks?  Then you need to understand CAP as a whole, not a piece.

Excellent points. Agree 100%.

[Storm Chaser]

Again, this strikes me as the mindset too many members of our organisation have: all ES, all the time.

I must be one of the .00000000000001% who did not join for ES.  I joined because I was interested in AE and providing a safe place for young people (something I did not have).

However, try doing AE to a flying club senior squadron who, if it does not relate to the nuts and bolts of "their" plane, completely tune you out.

Is CAP moving toward an all, or nearly all, organisation of Pilots, Observers, Scanners and Ground Team members, with the other speciality tracks just "secondary?"

With all due respect, no one is suggesting that it has to be "all ES, all the time". But there are certain staff positions that overlap with our operational mission and it has been determined by CAP that, in order for these officers to be more rounded and effective at the higher levels, they must complete training in these operational specialties.

Someone like yourself, who joined CAP because of the Cadet Programs and Aerospace Education, shouldn't be affected by this as there's no overlap of these functions with our operational mission other than, perhaps, cadet participation in ES.

[MIKE]

So in those wings where CAP essentially has no ES role, because the ELT search mission is dying and other functions are covered by the state... Nobody rises above Captain because CP and AE is the mission and ES is a pointless time sink?

[Storm Chaser]

So in those wings where CAP essentially has no ES role, because the ELT search mission is dying and other functions are covered by the state... Nobody rises above Captain because CP and AE is the mission and ES is a pointless time sink?

Do we really have wings in CAP with zero (0) opportunities for ES participation?

CAP is still one of the primary provider for overdue/missing aircraft search and rescue, as tasked by AFRCC. Even if these actual missions are few and far between, we still need to train for them. Furthermore, there are other missions in which CAP can participate. Every wing should identify needs within their states in which CAP can fill that void.

Finally, every wing has access to training funds. And if there are no aircraft involved in the training, they can request non-funded training missions. There's really no valid reason not to have ES training in a wing.

[Panache]

So in those wings where CAP essentially has no ES role, because the ELT search mission is dying and other functions are covered by the state... Nobody rises above Captain because CP and AE is the mission and ES is a pointless time sink?

Do we really have wings in CAP with zero (0) opportunities for ES participation?

No, but we do have Wings where ES participation is limited or non-existent due to local politics, and the nearest CAP aircraft is at an airport two hours away (and, as such, your chance of getting selected for a mission is slim).

[ZigZag911]

Take it out of the specialty tracks.

Make GES a requirement for completion of Level 1 (and the Mitchell Award).

Make a support function ES requirement for Level 2 (and Earhart Award) -- FLM, MRO, MSA.

I'd even be satisfied with just that...that we had a large number of our members with sufficient training to assist in some of these natural disaster responses where much of what we need is simply people qualified to show up and help out...hand out water bottles, help load supplies into a van, and so forth.

[Garibaldi]

Take it out of the specialty tracks.

Make GES a requirement for completion of Level 1 (and the Mitchell Award).

Make a support function ES requirement for Level 2 (and Earhart Award) -- FLM, MRO, MSA.

I'd even be satisfied with just that...that we had a large number of our members with sufficient training to assist in some of these natural disaster responses where much of what we need is simply people qualified to show up and help out...hand out water bottles, help load supplies into a van, and so forth.

GES is already "recommended" for getting out of Great Start in a few units...since they all have to take ORM and such...

[SarDragon]

Make a support function ES requirement for Level 2 (and Earhart Award) -- FLM, MRO, MSA.

FLM is a dying breed. That was my first ES qual WIWAC, and I continued it as a senior member until First Aid became a requirement, and my cert eventually ran out. I rarely see FLMs used these days, and many pilots these days are either reluctant to follow their directions, or lack the training to do so.

[abdsp51]

Do we really have wings in CAP with zero (0) opportunities for ES participation?

Overseas wings.

[Eclipse]

Make a support function ES requirement for Level 2 (and Earhart Award) -- FLM, MRO, MSA.

FLM is a dying breed. That was my first ES qual WIWAC, and I continued it as a senior member until First Aid became a requirement, and my cert eventually ran out. I rarely see FLMs used these days, and many pilots these days are either reluctant to follow their directions, or lack the training to do so.

Agreed - during missions, the aircraft are gone, and working airshows is risky and the ones with enough
planes to actually need marshallers generally have professional or venue staff and don't need CAP.

[THRAWN]

Do we really have wings in CAP with zero (0) opportunities for ES participation?

Overseas wings.

Name just one.

[abdsp51]

Do we really have wings in CAP with zero (0) opportunities for ES participation?

Overseas wings.

Name just one.

Ramstein, Spangdahlem,  and Osan all overseas wings that do not have ES opportunities. 

[LSThiker]

The ones with enough
planes to actually need marshallers generally have professional or venue staff and don't need CAP.

Disagree about air shows.  Maybe in your state, but I have participated in many air shows in my state that rely on the services of CAP for marshaling aircraft.  These are both large and small air shows.

[THRAWN]

Do we really have wings in CAP with zero (0) opportunities for ES participation?

Overseas wings.

Name just one.

Ramstein, Spangdahlem,  and Osan all overseas wings that do not have ES opportunities.

They have wing status now? When did that happen?

[Luis R. Ramos]

Not squadrons, but wings?

So the wing count went from 52 to...?

Drat, Thrawn beat me to it!

[SarDragon]

O/S units are a special case. They are called squadrons, but the commander has, for the most part, the power of a wing commander.

There are also units in Misawa and Yokota, Japan, and Okinawa.

abdsp51 is correct that there is no ES component to O/S unit operations. Given that the longest time someone might be assigned to a single O/S unit is about three years, I don't see a big problem with ES related promotion requirements. YMMV.

[Eclipse]

The training is available for them just like any other member, just don't expect to use it.

No reason they can't do table tops to stay current, or even participate in state-side training
and even real-world missions remotely.

[SarDragon]

The training is available for them just like any other member, just don't expect to use it.

And who's going to do the training? There are usually three or four senior members at best, and there's no guarantee that they are ES qualified. None of the SMs in my unit were, and the folks who came in after my group weren't either.

No reason they can't do table tops to stay current, or even participate in state-side training
and even real-world missions remotely.

No reason? See above. And then, how about the 14-17 hour time difference? Not insurmountable, but not easy to schedule, either. Communication is certainly easier today than it was in 1988, but the rewards versus effort ratio is still very low. Many times the cadets do not afflliate with a stateside unit so that training is essentially wasted, especially if there's no practical work to back up the book learning.

[Eclipse]

^ Both are true, neither is insurmountable given the effort.

Also, one needs not be "Qualified" to train someone in a skill of general good use, which most ES skills are,
especially the ground quals.  Land navigation and field craft skills are never going to be "wasted" just because
you can't use them to save someone (today).  I gained most of my knowledge of that through the BSA with no
other reason then "because", later on it was an easy transition to CAP.  Tents and compass' work the same way here
as in Okinawa and Spangdahlem, and while CAP may not be involved in ES there, these members belong to the larger community
and nothing says they can't contribute and join other organizations which provide community service and response, both
on and off base.

Anyone with the regs and the initiative can figure it out on their own, many members have had to do that very thing.

[lordmonar]

The training is available for them just like any other member, just don't expect to use it.

No reason they can't do table tops to stay current, or even participate in state-side training
and even real-world missions remotely.

OS units can do the training....but we can't get credit for it.....as NHQ will not issue mission numbers....so no qual sign offs.

But having said that........not a lot of people out in OS land are anything but CP guys......so it is really not an issue.
The big hang up usually is the two conference attendance, CLS, SLS, and that sort of stuff.   

[Eclipse]

OS units can do the training....but we can't get credit for it.....as NHQ will not issue mission numbers....so no qual sign offs.

Is there a system-level block on being signed into a mission statside?

We've had more then a few real-world missions and training where people were signed in and
got credit and were not in the same city or state, no reason they can't to that for OS units (granted
we're talking mostly ICS administrative positions, branch or higher).

[lordmonar]

By regulation OS squadrons cannot do ES.

End of story.....just can't do it.

Any attempt to game the system is violating the letter and spirit of the regulation.

Does not mean we can't do the training to support our cadet activities.......but no one can get qualified, no one can maintain their qualifications.

[Eclipse]

By regulation OS squadrons cannot do ES.

End of story.....just can't do it.

Any attempt to game the system is violating the letter and spirit of the regulation.

The regulations disagree:
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R035_004_14642E1BCED33.pdf

"7. Limitations. Overseas squadrons will be granted limited charters having all the privileges and
benefits of the regular CAP program with the following exceptions:

a. There will be no emergency services (ES) mission, although ES training is allowed if it is
within the confines of the applicable Status of Forces Agreement. Training funds are not available
for overseas squadrons, but members of overseas units are encouraged to participate in training as
possible when in the United States with any wing or by attending scheduled activities like the
National Emergency Services Academy. ES training conducted by overseas squadrons should be
coordinated with NHQ/DO who will inform the CAP/CC; NHQ/DO validates and approves training
in Ops Quals for members assigned to NHQ units including members of overseas squadrons."

[Private Investigator]

Do we really have wings in CAP with zero (0) opportunities for ES participation?

Overseas wings.

Name just one.

Ramstein, Spangdahlem,  and Osan all overseas wings that do not have ES opportunities.

Exactly how much ES happens in RIWG, VTWG, CTWG or NHWG as compared to AKWG, FLWG, TXWG or CAWG? 

[Mitchell 1969]

I think that CAP has had a lot of people who enter a support specialty and treat it as a standalone mission.  Mandating that they participate in an actual CAP mission makes sense - CAP doesn't exist to run spreadsheets, talk on radios or count canteen cups.

Having said that, it would now seem that the effort to get people to integrate into a mission responsibility has focused on only one of the three. Face it, there are those not suited to, not able to or interested in participate in ES.

So - why not spread it out? put some PD requirements in that mandate participation at an appropriate level in ONE of CAP's missions, to be chosen by the individual?

[MajorM]

Since it was PIO that kicked this off I would point out this...

The new track does not actually require any type of rating.  It doesn't require you to be a PIO.  That I could actually get behind.  Want to be a master PA? Then you must also be a PIO.  Let's face it, the PIO threshold is pathetically low (largely because ES folks don't understand it).  But that's not what they did.  Instead they added PIO related FEMA courses that aren't required for PIO. 

Why?  In their own words "to hopefully generate more interest in people becoming PIOs".

So if they want to align them, then align them.  But don't do it halfway.

[Storm Chaser]

By regulation OS squadrons cannot do ES.

End of story.....just can't do it.

Any attempt to game the system is violating the letter and spirit of the regulation.

The regulations disagree:
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R035_004_14642E1BCED33.pdf

"7. Limitations. Overseas squadrons will be granted limited charters having all the privileges and
benefits of the regular CAP program with the following exceptions:

a. There will be no emergency services (ES) mission, although ES training is allowed if it is
within the confines of the applicable Status of Forces Agreement. Training funds are not available
for overseas squadrons, but members of overseas units are encouraged to participate in training as
possible when in the United States with any wing or by attending scheduled activities like the
National Emergency Services Academy. ES training conducted by overseas squadrons should be
coordinated with NHQ/DO who will inform the CAP/CC; NHQ/DO validates and approves training
in Ops Quals for members assigned to NHQ units including members of overseas squadrons."

Base on this, I assume OS units could request a non-funded mission number to do some of this training.

[RiverAux]

Since it was PIO that kicked this off I would point out this...

The new track does not actually require any type of rating.  It doesn't require you to be a PIO. 

Actually it does for both Senior and Master ratings. 

[MajorM]

Well how the heck did I miss that?  And come to think of it it may have been in the last version too.

Well I take that back then. 

[lordmonar]

By regulation OS squadrons cannot do ES.

End of story.....just can't do it.

Any attempt to game the system is violating the letter and spirit of the regulation.

The regulations disagree:
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R035_004_14642E1BCED33.pdf

"7. Limitations. Overseas squadrons will be granted limited charters having all the privileges and
benefits of the regular CAP program with the following exceptions:

a. There will be no emergency services (ES) mission, although ES training is allowed if it is
within the confines of the applicable Status of Forces Agreement. Training funds are not available
for overseas squadrons, but members of overseas units are encouraged to participate in training as
possible when in the United States with any wing or by attending scheduled activities like the
National Emergency Services Academy. ES training conducted by overseas squadrons should be
coordinated with NHQ/DO who will inform the CAP/CC; NHQ/DO validates and approves training
in Ops Quals for members assigned to NHQ units including members of overseas squadrons."

Base on this, I assume OS units could request a non-funded mission number to do some of this training.

No NHQ will not issue mission numbers. I asked.

[sardak]

Do we really have wings in CAP with zero (0) opportunities for ES participation?

Exactly how much ES happens in RIWG, VTWG, CTWG or NHWG as compared to AKWG, FLWG, TXWG or CAWG? 

I know that no one really expected answers, but I'm finishing up an analysis of all SAR missions entered into WMIRS for FY13 and have real answers.

RIWG, VTWG, CTWG and NHWG combined for 1.8% of the FY13 mission total. There were 14 wings with fewer missions than CT, and 12 wings with less than NH. At the bottom with one mission each were RI, VT and PRWG.

AKWG, FLWG, TXWG and CAWG combined for 37.5%. If you include GAWG, NYWG and COWG, this gang of seven accounted for 50% of all missions for the year.

These numbers are for missing aircraft, missing person and beacon missions that were not canceled, a total of 600. Not included is one missing person mission assigned to Middle East Region (because it isn't a wing).

# of missions, # of wings, total number of missions, average missions per wing
1 to 5,     23,  79,  3

6 to 10,   13, 101,  8

11 to 20,  9, 116,  13

21 to 40,  3,   74,  25

41 to 60,  3, 151,  50

61 to 80,  1,   79,  79

Mike

[Eclipse]

What about DR and CD?  There's only so many hours in a week and a plane
can't be in both at once.

[JeffDG]

Also, the regs do not require a mission to be in WMIRS for training.

We will often just issue "Mission Numbers" for tabletops and such without touching WMIRS.  Will accept them for most stuff on SQTRs too...Now, can you do O-0702 Use a Signal Mirror (GTM3) on a tabletop?  Not easily, at least not to the eval standard.  But by God, I'll accept P-0101 "Demonstrate the ability to keep a log" (MSA + lots of others) for sure.

[Storm Chaser]

Also, the regs do not require a mission to be in WMIRS for training.

How do you issue a mission number without using WMIRS? Does your wing have an alternate method for issuing non-funded corporate mission numbers?

As I understood it, CAPR 60-3 doesn't require training missions/sorties to be AFAMs, but I thought every wing was required to use WMIRS for all training missions, funded or non-funded.

[Eclipse]

Also, the regs do not require a mission to be in WMIRS for training.

We will often just issue "Mission Numbers" for tabletops and such without touching WMIRS.  Will accept them for most stuff on SQTRs too...Now, can you do O-0702 Use a Signal Mirror (GTM3) on a tabletop?  Not easily, at least not to the eval standard.  But by God, I'll accept P-0101 "Demonstrate the ability to keep a log" (MSA + lots of others) for sure.

You don't have to have any mission number for tasks.  They can occur on a whim during a unit meeting,
or at the Starbucks if you have an SET.

You have to have a "mission" for the two participations, and it's not a "mission" unless it's in WMIRS.

EDIT: On re-read I think we said the same thing...

[Eclipse]

No NHQ will not issue mission numbers. I asked.

When did you ask, and who did you ask?

[lordmonar]

This was prior to 2006 and I asked NHQ ops direct

[Storm Chaser]

A lot has changed since. Maybe it's time to ask again.

[lordmonar]

Not OS anymore so it is moot for me.

[SarDragon]

Same here. I pre-dated Pat by several commanders.