NHq Communications Education and Training

[w7sar]

All,

By way of introduction, Malcolm Kyser has asked me to assist in the NHq communications arena, reporting to him as the Training and Education Head.  I am excited to work in this role.  By way of my background ... not necessary (contact me off line if you need details).  What IS important is looking forward and creating opportunities for our members to learn and master the art and science of communications.

I'd like to propose simply (to steal a phrase from a U.S. Marine Corps colonel) that we develop: Brilliance in the Basics.

A number of years ago a national communications curriculum was developed and approved, consisting of training modules.  The first published module was ICUT and then several other modules have been approved and are available via the online training area in eServices.

However, there's a lot more work to do.  We are behind in preparing and publishing training modules and I need your help!

In the past few years, I've quietly read your online questions, responses, complaints and analysis.  I've learned a lot from you.  There is a great body of wisdom and knowledge in the CAP communications community.

What kinds of basic expertise do we need to accomplish?  Don't just propose or complain or tell me how far behind schedule things are ... propose something, step up and (when approved) volunteer to help make it happen by preparing materials for nationwide use.

There are several "old" modules needing someone to adopt and prepare materials.  If you are willing (and there is help and in-depth information and guidance available) contact me directly concerning these modules:

Advanced temporary/field communications station setup
Basic equipment maintenance
Airborne radio operations orientation
Liaison net operations
HF/ALE operations and ALE scenarios
Creating and using after action reports
People: Tasking, managing and keeping safe
Liaison and interoperability considerations
CAP communications program management
Developing and managing communications plans
Spectrum management
Communications logistics

There are a number of other "old" modules already in the final stages of approval. Some are awaiting approval based on pending operations initiatives, but should be published soon.

Finally...  PLEASE speak up, complain, wax poetic, propose ideas, vent, ask questions ... BUT volunteer to step up and help make it happen.

It doesn't take much genius to point out problems, but it takes something extraordinary to identify solutions and then help turn those solutions into reality.

I forgot to add my email: jerry.wellman@sm.capnhq.gov

[JC004]

I might have some older items that could be updated and including with training materials.

I'd like to know if there are plans to make the frequencies not officially FOUO, considering they are widely available.  I don't feel like it's helpful to have people in the field rolling their eyes and snickering over something being officially FOUO, but available in a couple seconds.  It doesn't help because it discourages taking actual FOUO information handling seriously, if people think it's basically a joke with the frequencies. 

The training videos overly emphasize this, and spend a lot of time on that stuff.

Also, are there plans to revise the current videos any time soon, with changes from feedback?

[lordmonar]

+1   It is next to impossible to get our repeater codes and freqs out of our wing DCs.   This hampers us comm officers at the unit level to do simple things....like program non-standard radios....pass our freqs to our customers when you are trying to coordinate communications of the fly.   

This has always been one of the problems I have seen with CAP Comm is the close hold that DC's keep on all things comm.

[arajca]

I did volunteer a few years ago. I got shot down hard, with the attitude of don't ever ask again.

[w7sar]

"I'd like to know if there are plans to make the frequencies not officially FOUO, considering they are widely available."
No plans.  It's not a CAP policy, but comes from those whose frequencies we use and who owns them.  Just because they're out there doesn't mean as a CAP member who has agreed not to share them, should.  We have integrity and trust from those who have given us permission to use their frequencies. In my opinion, it's not worth risking problems. Go with it.   

Video updates?  Yes, anything is possible.  It may require field help to pitch in and make it happen.  Let's talk.  Email or call.

Sorry you got shot down ... it wasn't from me.  Let's do this again. Please get involved.  Your talent and expertise would be welcome by me.

And, "repeater codes and freqs out of our wing DCs" ... not sure I can help, with 52 personalities  (grin) it's a challenge.  Your voice has been heard. I feel your pain. 

[w7sar]

As an added note ... (response to an email)....

Yes, I realized that communications people are very passionate and opinionated (I are one).  Yes, I knew that I would need more than a nomex flight suit to protect me.  Yes, I know a lot of past history (all really meaningless).  Yes, I was part of that past history.  Let's move past it.

But, not knowing most of you, and trusting you are people of integrity and trust ... the slate is clean.  Please help provide solutions.  Don't just complain (that's easy) but propose solutions.  How can we FIX it?  Maybe you have the magic solution? 

Jerry (FYI, Uncle Mike 27 on the HF net.)

[arajca]

+1   It is next to impossible to get our repeater codes and freqs out of our wing DCs.   This hampers us comm officers at the unit level to do simple things....like program non-standard radios....pass our freqs to our customers when you are trying to coordinate communications of the fly.   

This has always been one of the problems I have seen with CAP Comm is the close hold that DC's keep on all things comm.

Should not be that hard. From CAPR100-1:

Within CAP, frequencies may only be released to members who have a legitimate need to know, have taken the on-line OPSEC training and have agreed to protect CAP frequency information. Where agencies, businesses or individuals outside of CAP have a legitimate need to know, permission may be requested by an e-mail, containing full justification, sent to: dok@capnhq.gov. In contingency situations, other national level offices such as the National Operations Center (NOC) may coordinate directly with CAP-USAF.

Depending on what you mean by "non-standard radios", it should be fairly easy.

[lordmonar]

+1   It is next to impossible to get our repeater codes and freqs out of our wing DCs.   This hampers us comm officers at the unit level to do simple things....like program non-standard radios....pass our freqs to our customers when you are trying to coordinate communications of the fly.   

This has always been one of the problems I have seen with CAP Comm is the close hold that DC's keep on all things comm.

Should not be that hard. From CAPR100-1:

Within CAP, frequencies may only be released to members who have a legitimate need to know, have taken the on-line OPSEC training and have agreed to protect CAP frequency information. Where agencies, businesses or individuals outside of CAP have a legitimate need to know, permission may be requested by an e-mail, containing full justification, sent to: dok@capnhq.gov. In contingency situations, other national level offices such as the National Operations Center (NOC) may coordinate directly with CAP-USAF.

Depending on what you mean by "non-standard radios", it should be fairly easy.

Should be......   I got a legitimate need for the freqs for a CAP mission using an USAF provided PRC-117.   I finally got the freqs and codes.....but I had to back door them....and they were screen shots from someone's Iphone.....it was a major PIA when it SHOULD have been a simple E-mail...or better yet posted on the Comm Web Site where a password protects the FOUO info.

[JC004]

"I'd like to know if there are plans to make the frequencies not officially FOUO, considering they are widely available."
No plans.  It's not a CAP policy, but comes from those whose frequencies we use and who owns them.  Just because they're out there doesn't mean as a CAP member who has agreed not to share them, should.  We have integrity and trust from those who have given us permission to use their frequencies. In my opinion, it's not worth risking problems. Go with it.   

Video updates?  Yes, anything is possible.  It may require field help to pitch in and make it happen.  Let's talk.  Email or call.

Sorry you got shot down ... it wasn't from me.  Let's do this again. Please get involved.  Your talent and expertise would be welcome by me.

And, "repeater codes and freqs out of our wing DCs" ... not sure I can help, with 52 personalities  (grin) it's a challenge.  Your voice has been heard. I feel your pain.

You know those warning labels that say a particular item contains chemicals known by the state of California to cause cancer?  In California, they are everywhere.  They're on every sort of product, they're on hotel room doors (smoke in the building), parking garages, and at the airport.  People see them everywhere, and they ignore them.  Companies and property owners put them up for NO REASON except to avoid a fine or lawsuit, even if it's not covered by regulations.  People don't know what they are meant to convey, and they are consequently meaningless.

Not only does it make communications more difficult from a practical standpoint, but it also encourages blindness to these notices, as does including them in, for example, an e-mail reminder about an airshow.  Because those notices become meaningless, we must guess what information requires special handling, and that leads to mistakes.

This does not fall squarely on communications to resolve for all of CAP, but basic communications training information will be many members' first exposure to it as a policy.  When new members hear others snickering that the frequencies are available to anyone in about 2 seconds, they begin to develop their blindness toward FOUO.

I have not previously heard anything about who originated it, but perhaps it needs to be reexamined with them.  Simply, there is no way to keep VHF ham/basic scanner-range frequencies secret. 

I would like to talk to you about the videos/ICUT (although I did not make written notes, so I will need to re-watch them).  I'd also be happy to pass along updated copies of old materials I used in the past.  And I might know a person or 2 who'd be interested in working on the training for the items you listed. 

[Eclipse]

FOUO should never stand in the way of getting work done.  Anyone who needs them FOU, can have them.

[Fubar]

It seem like the communications training should fall within two tracks:

• End Users
• Communications Staff

Our end users, typically ES but also a bit of CP during encampments and such need to know just enough to get through whatever detail they are working. Push to talk, release to listen type training. Pretty much nothing on your list of modules for these folks.

For the communications staff, which for me means comm duty positions within the squadrons and the comm ES qualifications MRO and CUL. Pretty much everything you listed would fall under these folks.

For short term, creating more training for end-users would probably be the low-hanging fruit and easier to create.

Good luck with your position. Hopefully you receive the help you need. For those that want to provide you with assistance, should they contact you through the SQ/WG/RG comm folks or go VFR direct to you?

[w7sar]

"I have not previously heard anything about who originated it, but perhaps it needs to be reexamined with them.  Simply, there is no way to keep VHF ham/basic scanner-range frequencies secret. "

You are 100% correct.  The principle for CAP members is simply the request for FOUO originated from the AF folk ... it's not a CAP decision.  We should simply have enough self-discipline and integrity to NOT be the source.  In a volunteer role I have, I have access to a lot of public safety information.  Some of it is in the public arena, some not.  No matter what is or isn't, I have given my word not to divulge (confirm, deny or even discuss).  It's my personal integrity, not the fact it's known somewhere by someone. 

So, can we drop this thread?  It's not a CAP decision to make.  All of you have made your point.  Move on. Please.  Further beating the issue is not productive here or to CAP leaders (who make decisions) who read this.
Thanks!

[w7sar]

"Should they contact you through the SQ/WG/RG comm folks or go VFR direct to you?"

I've been in command roles and now am in a squadron.  I know my chain of command.  Some things should go through the chain of command, some not.  I am OK with VFR direct if you're in a CAVU environment and are on good terms with everyone ... but, don't ruffle feathers.  If you think that a suggestion on training (non regulatory, basic comm improvement stuff) needs eyes on from others, by all means do it.

Let's not make things so complicated that nothing gets proposed.  That's one reason I chose to post here on CAPTalk.  I know the signal-to-noise level here is often off the scale and stuff gets lost in background noise.  Let's be polite and work together.  I work for Malcolm Kyser and he is my boss.  I'm not going to go out and get him in trouble (I hope) by saying stupid things or prolonging arguments just because .... 

The idea is making things better.  With your help.  But, if it gets ugly, my time is not worth endless debates on things that don't matter, things that are of lesser importance, things that only affect one or two people, etc.  Like someone said, let's pick the low-hanging fruit first ... and there's a lot to be picked.

Thanks!