I just got information that the MRO and CUL courses at NESA are being replaced by RADO and COML classes. There wasn't much other information other than completing the Plus level in these FEMA rating will allow members to deploy with FEMA. Anyone know more? If there replace MRO and CUL across the board for CAP, I would not want members to waste time with MRO and CUL ratings when they should be pursuing RADO and COML. There are apparently multiple levels of both ratings.

They have been running a COML course at NESA since 2018. National Conference in 2018 also had some discussion about MRO/CUL to RADO/COML "transition starting within months". National Conference update in 2019 on this same issue "online coming soon, paper SQTRs initially". I looked for an update in the 2020 National Conference materials but I didn't find one.

During this whole time, absolutely zero through chain of command; no generally available documentation; nothing in Ops Quals. Even the NESA site just says the COML course details are "TBA".

It would be just really great to have some transparency on what is actually happening with this change and when, speaking as CUL SET.

Well, I'm just going to keep on keepin' on, turning out qualified Comm folks that meet the current standards. That's about all we can do until we get updated guidance. Nothing to get your Jockey shorts in a knot over.

Well, I signed up for the COML course at NESA. I have way too much vacation time banked. Let's see what happens.

Quote from: NovemberWhiskey on April 28, 2021, 12:58:21 AMWell, I signed up for the COML course at NESA. I have way too much vacation time banked. Let's see what happens.

We'll need an AAR on this, of course.

Roger please on the AAR.

I am also a SET for CUL and MRO. I don't want people to waste time pursuing those ratings if they are going to be replaced.

I certainly see the logic in adopting ICS ratings. CAP members might get more deployments. On the other hand, I wonder how many in CAP are qualified to train members for these ratings.

This was part of the message I saw on the matter:

"The COML Course will take the place of CUL and requires both Seniors and Cadets must be a qualified RADO Intermediate.  For the Intermediate level, Seniors are required to hold a Technician Rating in Communications and Cadets are required to hold the Rickenbacker Award. For the Plus Level of COML, Seniors and Cadets must be RADO Plus level, COML Intermediate Level.  Seniors must hold Level 3 Professional development and Cadets must hold the Mitchell Award.  Completing the Plus Level of both of these rating will allow members to deploy as a FEMA RADO or COML.  This will greatly expand CAP's role in major disasters."

Some Internet research on the ratings seems to indicate you must hold the next higher rating to be able to train members for a rating. It is probably going to be difficult to spin this up unless we can latch onto another organization's training program. I am not any of the courses offered on my state's training site which concerns me.

I am not arguing against this, simply trying to get some clarity on what is happening and how to help make it go well.

 

Where, exactly, would these "deployments" come from? 

They aren't going to be taking READY-OPS packs and EFJs out to the field to use with non-members,
and if they get the FEMA ratings, why would they wait around for CAP to get involved when they
could respond as direct volunteers without the golf shirt?

CAP has always had the odd missions where they fly someone else's repeater, but otherwise,
other agencies have their own radio ops.

Quote from: BoxGranch on April 29, 2021, 12:55:59 AMThis was part of the message I saw on the matter:

Could you share the full source for this message, if possible? The fragment you quoted has more specifics than I've seen anywhere else.

EDIT: there's also some kind of weird coupling between ES qualification prereqs and professional development levels that is ... unprecedented?

Quote from: Eclipse on April 29, 2021, 01:11:02 AMWhere, exactly, would these "deployments" come from? 

Don't quote me on this, but I seem to recall hearing from a wing-level DOS that CAP now has a process for lending out volunteers to operate in an ICS that doesn't feature a CAP IC. It's not clear to me how that would work w.r.t the requirements of CAPR 60-3, and I may have hallucinated the whole thing.

i.e. there is a CAP mission number, the IC is remote, the only other CAP mission staffing is the volunteer who's being lent out, and they slot into whatever slot in the actual ICS.

I've been hearing about that sort for things for years.

As you say, executing that within the current state of the regs is problematic
at best, and I don't know why members would do that when they could likely
just work direct and only serve one master.

Everyone raises the SHTF scenarios where most regs go out the door any way,
but thankfully those are still few and far between, and the more mundane
activities don't have the need for randos from other orgs to backfill
an org chart, unless CAP would get more aggressive about marketing the skill
and writing MOUs that are more the mutual recognition agreements.

Meaningful MOUs require internal ramifications for non-performance, because
an agency relying on you doesn't call twice if you don't' show because "all
the Comm guys are on vacation".

And that's the crux of it with any idea that standardized ratings get CAP more work.
It won't mean "less" work to look and sound like everyone else, but without
marketing and expectations, the average agency lead is not going to rely on
volunteers with no requirement to respond or perform above "you're lucky we
showed up at all".

Well, once again it has degenerated into a measuring contest. Let's let this cool off for a bit, until there are more pieces to fill the gaps.

Click.