Available dates for service

[Storm Chaser]

My interpretation of CAPR 60-3, section 2-3.g is as follow:

[goog stuff]

• Need someone to do damage assessment; I wouldn't assign a GES. Due to lack of a DR/DA specialty, I would probably assign an experienced GT with some additional training in DA.

This is the only item I take issue with, simply because the average GTM is no more able to do proper damage assessment than anyone else. I would use someone who has training with damage assessment, however, regardless of their cap training so long as they at least had GES. Now for other DR activities, I have no problem using GTs as the primary tool.

The problem is that without a SQTR, CAP has no effective way to track who's qualified and has which type of training. As an IC, I would of course assign personnel who are trained and qualified for the task at hand. Lacking any specialized qualification and having to use "good judgement", however, I would pick an experienced GT over GES-only personnel with no additional training for damage assessment or any other DR task. My rationale is that GTMs have training and experience in ES and would probably be able to perform these DA duties more effectively and safely, with some additional training, than personnel with little or no ES experience. You can disagree, but in this scenario I'm the IC and get to make the call.

[Spaceman3750]

The reg says what it says, you can't argue that, however it's a single sentence inside a hugely subjective situation
and not one NHQ has chosen to deal with on any level other then looking at their feet and hoping it will go away.

There's no resolution here.

There is no resolution here unless you believe, as an alternative theory, that when NHQ published regulatory guidance stating:

There are some duty positions that CAP does not have specific specialty qualifications identified. Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member to fill these gaps in order to meet the needs of the mission, but must use good judgment to select personnel who have the appropriate training and backgrounds to be able to successfully complete their assignment.CAPR 60-3, 2-3(g)

what was actually meant was:

There are some duty positions that CAP does not have specific specialty qualifications identified. Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member to fill these gaps in order to meet the needs of the mission, but must use good judgment to select personnel who have the appropriate training and backgrounds to be able to successfully complete their assignment. CAPR 60-3, 2-3(g)


I realize it may be farfetched, but it could serve as an operable theory to use until something better comes along.

Oh wow, that sounded kinda good. . .!

Havng caught grief from Eclipse for my cavalier attitude over SAS, and pointless negative-value processes in CAP, it's tempting to pile on. . .but

What I'm hearing is a long serving, committed, and frustrated guy who'd like to see some order in the organization.  We've drilled down to the bare metal in so many areas that our attention has to be spread so very thin now; we're semi-paralyzed by a blizzard of adminstrivia, low/no value depth in things from SUIs to confirming we've not counted the wing nuts on equipment we don't have. . .we need a lot less of this kind of junk, or at least we need it segregated. We exalt the trivial, and in doing so, we denigrate the essential.

Heresy here, but showng up for a real mission with the wong color T-shirt is trivial. Mention it after you find the wreckage, after debrief. Silly? Bet you a buck we have people here who would send a critical asset home over the T-shirt.

We have so much detailed "order" that we're overwhelmed with it. We move slow, we stumble over the import of one aspect of preparation over another, and we are not flexible.  This hurts us, it puts people off, they drift away. 

So people running a DR event want some flexibility, probably starving for it, actually; "Pass out the freakin' water already!" He/she doesn't need another snowflake in the avalanche of pointless cr*p they already have to deal with.   

But I bet Eclipse has seen all kinds of "winging it" that wasn't within the bounds of common sense or personal safety; and at the other extreme, I've seen all kinds of claptrap that added zero (or subtracted from) the execution of the mission. IMSAFE? No, genuis, I had a stroke last night, but I got the feeling in my leg back and decided to go fly. . .or, at the other extreme, did you really send the Cadet out to help install the antenna during a thunderstorm?

Somone will do something stupid. So boil down the SOP/training/SAS to essential, FOCUSED, clear, easily articulated, repeatable, meaningful, SHORT, procedures/processes.  How many thousands of pages are in CAP pubs/forms/pamphlets/web pages that apply to almost every member? It's way out of hand. . .

Probably the best post in the entire thread.

[jeders]

My interpretation of CAPR 60-3, section 2-3.g is as follow:

[goog stuff]

• Need someone to do damage assessment; I wouldn't assign a GES. Due to lack of a DR/DA specialty, I would probably assign an experienced GT with some additional training in DA.

This is the only item I take issue with, simply because the average GTM is no more able to do proper damage assessment than anyone else. I would use someone who has training with damage assessment, however, regardless of their cap training so long as they at least had GES. Now for other DR activities, I have no problem using GTs as the primary tool.

The problem is that without a SQTR, CAP has no effective way to track who's qualified and has which type of training. As an IC, I would of course assign personnel who are trained and qualified for the task at hand. Lacking any specialized qualification and having to use "good judgement", however, I would pick an experienced GT over GES-only personnel with no additional training for damage assessment or any other DR task. My rationale is that GTMs have training and experience in ES and would probably be able to perform these DA duties more effectively and safely, with some additional training, than personnel with little or no ES experience. You can disagree, but in this scenario I'm the IC and get to make the call.

I agree with you on all the DR stuff, just not on actual damage assessment. The reason being, at least from my Red Cross DA training and experience after floods, noting damage a few inches one way or the other is the difference between a homeowner getting assistance and not getting assistance. So, at least for anything where the Red Cross is involved, if you don't have people that are actually DA trained, then just don't do the tasking. Now if we're talking DA in terms of which roads/bridges are washed out etc., then I guess that's ok for CAP GTs to do.

That being said, I would think that in a major DR operation someone would be collecting information on additional relevant training that incoming resources have.

[JeffDG]

My interpretation of CAPR 60-3, section 2-3.g is as follow:

[goog stuff]

• Need someone to do damage assessment; I wouldn't assign a GES. Due to lack of a DR/DA specialty, I would probably assign an experienced GT with some additional training in DA.

This is the only item I take issue with, simply because the average GTM is no more able to do proper damage assessment than anyone else. I would use someone who has training with damage assessment, however, regardless of their cap training so long as they at least had GES. Now for other DR activities, I have no problem using GTs as the primary tool.

The problem is that without a SQTR, CAP has no effective way to track who's qualified and has which type of training. As an IC, I would of course assign personnel who are trained and qualified for the task at hand. Lacking any specialized qualification and having to use "good judgement", however, I would pick an experienced GT over GES-only personnel with no additional training for damage assessment or any other DR task. My rationale is that GTMs have training and experience in ES and would probably be able to perform these DA duties more effectively and safely, with some additional training, than personnel with little or no ES experience. You can disagree, but in this scenario I'm the IC and get to make the call.

I agree with you on all the DR stuff, just not on actual damage assessment. The reason being, at least from my Red Cross DA training and experience after floods, noting damage a few inches one way or the other is the difference between a homeowner getting assistance and not getting assistance. So, at least for anything where the Red Cross is involved, if you don't have people that are actually DA trained, then just don't do the tasking. Now if we're talking DA in terms of which roads/bridges are washed out etc., then I guess that's ok for CAP GTs to do.

That being said, I would think that in a major DR operation someone would be collecting information on additional relevant training that incoming resources have.

See, I'd rather send out a Civil Engineer with a GES (maybe with a GT to babysit him and make sure he doesn't kill himself)...that would be "appropriate training and background"

[Storm Chaser]

^ No disagreement there. But if you read my post carefully you'll notice I said "GES-only personnel with no additional training". A Civil Engineer has additional training.

The problem I have as an IC is that I have no way of tracking certain training outside of CAP. A DR SQTR at least provides a common framework for training and qualification. GES doesn't provide that.