Anyone else having pilots quiting over the FEMA courses?

[Larry Mangum]

Please stop attacking the posters.  I ask people to explain their frustrations and then when they do, they get attacked.  That is counter productive and prevents feedback that might be useful.

[MIGCAP]

For the sake of truth:
"(ICS courses are a govt. requirement for continued funding; not a command decision)" is simply not true. ICS 700 is the only requirement for our folks, and that's not even firm. We tend to make statements in CAP that Mother Air Force, Aunt FEMA, or Uncle US Gov't said, we had to do something when it really isn't true. We simply do this to ourselves since we cannot decide what we really want to be. And most of the things we want to be are not possible in the wildest dreams of anyone.
If we wanna be the IC of a major disaster then we have lots of requirements for our mission base staff, but nobody is ever going to ask us to do that. We are simply going to be asked to bring rather specialized search assetts to the ball game under very limited circumstances. We have delusions of greatness.
We also do not communnicate requirements and explanations for those requirements well to the worker bees (pilots and non-pilots). Therefore stuff shows up as "Surprise!" you're not current anymore. The only answer to the why question is "cause National said so" that is why a lot of very good people have not renewed or are contemplating non-renewal. I believe the reason for that is, in most cases, there really isn't an explanation for the requirements other than "it will make us look more important and  cool."

[desertengineer1]

As a Deputy Commander for Seniors of a fairly large flying squadron, I think the real problem is frustration.  There are not sufficient communications of the requirements, nor is there a roadmap of what needs to be done for specific tasks.  One major problem is that for ES ratings, sine the SQTRs have not been updated, the SQTRs that people complete do not match the ADDITIONAL requirements.  So, someone prints an SQTR and completes all tasks on an SQTR, then finds out there are additional requirements not listed on the SQTR.  That causes frustration.  For pilots, where there is a "quick start", there is not anything printed that contains all tasks to complete.  And, in talking to different people, they get different opinions on what needs to be completed for specific tasks.  Once they think they have completed the requirements for specific tasks, they then find out about additional requirements they didn't know about.  That also causes frustration.  Also, there is a mindset that pilots get all kinds of "free flying".  That also causes frustration.

WT, these are great words that IMHO capture a common thought among those in command positions.  While most of our members understand that the ways of doing things will always change, I share your concern about the method they are handed down.  I get the feeling not enough follow-through is put into these regarding actual implementation.  The list can go on and on (Ground Handling, OPSEC, Narrowband Transition, etc..)

The only thing within our power is to make sure we communicate it up the chain.  I would so wish a better, more explained process.  Your citation of the updated SQTR's are on target.  All relevant paperwork in the process should be updated immediately upon such mandates.  But alas, I'm not the person in charge, and can only work at my level to reduce the pain.

With respect to the IS-700, I don't understand the gripe.  It took me a few minutes to do them, and MP's should be thankful they are all online.  The classroom only IS courses are a royal pain to find and schedule!

For the "Free flying" concept, yeah, I got a problem with that.  Whoever is going around spreading that rumor should be a test subject for waterboarding.

[wingnut55]

Please don't assume that my 400 hours of mission time over the last 3 years consisted of me sleeping in the back seat. I have been on many high profile  Missions, CD, Archer, DFing and taken off weeks from work. I have earned the right to ask who is in charge and why are some of the decisions being made counter productive to us who are doing the missions. You see my biggest concern is that these are questions being asked by members I have recruited not just the rants of  the village idiot. Civil Air Patrols problems are in the public limelight every time we have a major profile mission and the crash we spent hundreds of hours of flight time on is found by some other agency working out of the Box we have put our self into.

[Short Field]

CAWG is loosing check pilots because they are tired as one accurately said" I am tired of the  "Non Pilots" in CAP pushing us around during a mission and I am tired of the BS"
in short it is not about the mission it is about the arrogance and disrespectful behavior of those in 'COMMAND" towards the people who are doing the work.

Easy solution - get some mission base ops quals and start planning and running the missions.  Complete the AFRCC Inland SAR Planner's Course.  Become an IC. 

[wingnut55]

I attended the Sar course 3 years ago, and do those tasks like making copies, debrief. You don't take a course a start running missions!! are you just joking.

we have plenty of ICs 40 of them, most refuse to take a DF mission, most are never seen. IT IS A CLICK. . .

Oh am I yelling?

[Short Field]

You Sir are gripping about NON-PILOTS: 

CAWG is loosing check pilots because they are tired as one accurately said" I am tired of the  "Non Pilots" in CAP pushing us around during a mission and I am tired of the BS"
in short it is not about the mission it is about the arrogance and disrespectful behavior of those in 'COMMAND" towards the people who are doing the work.

The solution is having Pilots qualified to do the mission base jobs - that should stop the non-pilots pushing the pilots around.  What are your Ops Quals?  Just TWO of mine are listed below.  I also worked more than 60 hrs as IC last week on a SAR.  If you don't like how it is done, get qualified and do it yourself.  Then you can lead by example.

No, you don't take a course and start running missions  - you work your way up to IC by gaining experience working as a AOBD, PSC, and OSC.  Making copies and debrief?? Sounds like a MSA. 

[CadetProgramGuy]

Let me interject for a second......

The ICS Classes are mandated so CAP can be NIMS compliant, as directed by FEMA and HLSEM.

If you want to become mission management, (GBD, AOBD or higher) you must attend ICS 300 and 400.  To get to these classes you must take 100, 200, 700, 800.

In the end this will come down to federal funding to both CAP and to the wing.

[wuzafuzz]

I think the bottom line is NIMS and ICS are useful for all kinds of things, not just responding to major terrorist or wildfire events.  Using ICS does not mean CAP is living delusions of grandeur.  It's simply the direction our organization has chosen to take.  Could it be communicated better?  Sure.

As an aside, even this video about a bear loose in a neighborhood mentions the responders using ICS:
http://gallery.venturacountystar.com/video.cfm?VideoID=844
Apparently they are living and breathing ICS.

[RiverAux]

As I've kept track of in another thread, there has been a decline in the number of mission pilots associated with these new requirements, but not a horrendous one.  Alaska was one of those that evidently didn't really take them seriously until Jan 1 as you had 0 mission pilots for a while so I'm not surprised that there is some grumbling up there. 

[Smithsonia]

Some things are simply true. "You can do more if everybody works together" is one of the simple truths. Six thousand years of written human history have accounted for this truth. We need a system to work on larger scales. WHY?

In Colorado we will burn. Wild land fires of Biblical proportion are coming soon due to extensive beetle kill. SEE HERE: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12325843

When that happens it will be our Katrina. It is certain. We best get ready. We might as well work together. ICS is the system. SO get over it, several thousand feet over it. Get with the program.

[AlaskanCFI]

I was hoping the answer to my original question would have been more of a yes , no, or I don't know

[Spike]

I was hoping the answer to my original question would have been more of a yes , no, or I don't know

Original Post......

The 700 course in particular seem to really be steaming the shorts of many of our senior mission & instructor pilots.  Just wondering how it is going with folks in the Lower 48... Maybe it is just an Alaskan thing.

Break it down for ya....

The 700 course in particular seem to really be steaming the shorts of many of our senior mission & instructor pilots.

YES.

Just wondering how it is going with folks in the Lower 48...

NO.

Maybe it is just an Alaskan thing

I don't Know.


THERE you go.  Post answered with the answers you were looking for.   

[dbaran]

I don't know of any MP who has quit over the FEMA courses.   I thought 300 was great - due to an excellent instructor. 100/200/700/800 were awful, but bearable because they're over so quickly.

We have plenty of MPs that have let their rating/participation lapse; the reasons include:

a) Financial concerns - "Everyone else is getting laid off at work - I have to concentrate on my job to keep it," CFI suffering during economic downturn means they have to put in more hours for less money, layoffs of others at work resulted in an increased workload for you, etc.

b) Hassle factor too high (WMU online flight releases, changes in CAP uniform requirements for those with the now outlawed light blue flight suit, no instructor/check pilot available for the plane, large number of hours required for G1000, aircraft grounded for MX for extended period of time/scheduling unreliability)

c) Too little flying in CAP to financially justify the F5/F91 process.   

d) When there is CAP flying, I never get to do it because I'm working base staff as an AOBD, PSC, OSC, etc.

e) The new CAP [and this may just be my wing] focus on ONLY flying CAP airplanes.  Almost all of the lapsed MPs that I know own an airplane, so they spend their time flying that instead of staying proficient in a CAP plane.   The hassle factor is a big one here for proficiency - you can hop in your plane and shoot approaches if you feel like it.  Not the case with doing it in a CAP plane any more.

Most  former CAP pilots have at least two of the above reasons for not flying for CAP.

The lack of mission pilots is a big concern to me; I spent a lot of time scrounging for them for missing airplane missions and large CD activities.   At the Group level, we care about it, and I know other Groups are having the same trouble - but Wing has other issues that they prefer to deal with at the moment.

[Short Field]

I was hoping the answer to my original question would have been more of a yes , no, or I don't know

Most got it finished within the first month of not being able to fly - the majority within a couple of days.  The few (2 or 4) who did not were not really active CAP flyers anymore and decided now was a good time to just stop flying for CAP.  We lost more when we stopped funding a lot of the privately owned aircraft on missions.

[biomed441]

My squadron has several pilots, and an observer or two if I'm not mistaken. None of them have vocalized an issue with the FEMA courses.  They are all active in flying and don't seem to be bothered. It comes down to why are you in CAP? Not trying to slam pilots, as if I wasn't colorblind, I would be flying for CAP as well.

As an emergency response agency, first responder or not, we all need to be current with federal regulations.  If there are pilots who simple don't want to keep current, then thats unfortunate, but what can you do.  Try and encourage more seniors to get MO ratings that are willing to do what is necessary to serve in a capacity that warrents the priviledge to fly CAP aircraft.

On a personal note, I actually find the FEMA courses interesting. Somewhat tedious, but useful information none the less.

[LittleIronPilot]

I don't know of any MP who has quit over the FEMA courses.   I thought 300 was great - due to an excellent instructor. 100/200/700/800 were awful, but bearable because they're over so quickly.

We have plenty of MPs that have let their rating/participation lapse; the reasons include:

a) Financial concerns - "Everyone else is getting laid off at work - I have to concentrate on my job to keep it," CFI suffering during economic downturn means they have to put in more hours for less money, layoffs of others at work resulted in an increased workload for you, etc.

b) Hassle factor too high (WMU online flight releases, changes in CAP uniform requirements for those with the now outlawed light blue flight suit, no instructor/check pilot available for the plane, large number of hours required for G1000, aircraft grounded for MX for extended period of time/scheduling unreliability)

c) Too little flying in CAP to financially justify the F5/F91 process.   

d) When there is CAP flying, I never get to do it because I'm working base staff as an AOBD, PSC, OSC, etc.

e) The new CAP [and this may just be my wing] focus on ONLY flying CAP airplanes.  Almost all of the lapsed MPs that I know own an airplane, so they spend their time flying that instead of staying proficient in a CAP plane.   The hassle factor is a big one here for proficiency - you can hop in your plane and shoot approaches if you feel like it.  Not the case with doing it in a CAP plane any more.

Most  former CAP pilots have at least two of the above reasons for not flying for CAP.

The lack of mission pilots is a big concern to me; I spent a lot of time scrounging for them for missing airplane missions and large CD activities.   At the Group level, we care about it, and I know other Groups are having the same trouble - but Wing has other issues that they prefer to deal with at the moment.

Wow....I think you just described me!

I own my own aircraft and it is all I can do to keep it flying. I have a busy life and so I can just get home, roll the plane out of the hangar, do my pre-flight and I am flying.

With CAP? Not so easy...actually quite a pain in the arse. Plus any money I spend flying THEIR plane is money not spent flying MY plane.

[arajca]

A comment on flying CAP planes instead of member owned planes...

How many member-owned a/c have DF equipment? Have CAP radios? How many pilots are willing to let someone else fly their plane? Let the AOBD dictate who they take with them on a flight?

These issues are directly related to the insistance on using CAP aircraft. As a cadet, I remember helping pilots jury-rig L'pers to use in their aircraft for missions and training. I have seen pilots refuse to take personnel assigned to the sortie because they weren't the pilot's buddies.

I also remember, as a cadet, doing 25+ ofights in a member owned a/c because the few CAP a/c weren't within 100 miles and the 'approved' pilots refused to fly cadets because the a/c had to be ready for a 'real' mission on a moments notice. I remember, as a cadet officer, 'supervising' the cadets at the airport who were waiting for their oflights. We usually had three or four pilots and a/c with about 12-15 cadets each oflight day.

Today, we have pilots who want to fly cadets for oflights in CAP a/c, but we have problems getting cadets who want to fly oflights.

Crews are assigned based (generally) on ability, not being the pilots buddy. Pilots who decide they don't like the crew, don't fly.

If the pilot throws a tantrum, they are told to leave, but the a/c remains available for the mission.

Aircraft are generally equipped with the same DF equipment, properly mounted. Training for aircrew is basically standardized, with most of the focus on operating the equipment, not compensating for improper installation, or figuring out how to jury rig the equipment in the a/c.

[dbaran]

In my 19 years in CAP, I have not had an experience with childish behavior like you've outlined below.  I've found the pilots are very willing to share, have offered to let other people fly their own airplane if it will help, and do all sorts of other really helpful things to support the missions. 

I cannot think of the last time that we had a surplus of crews for O-rides or real missions or even SAREXes.  If you've got a pilot surplus - I hope you can enjoy it while it lasts.

All that I'm saying is that we have a pretty good understanding of why there is a pilot shortage, and it isn't the FEMA courses.

[RiverAux]

If only 10% of current CAP pilots fitted their planes with CAP radios and have them maintained to CAP standards it would increase our "fleet" by 30-50%.  DFs aren't necessary for them to be useful to CAP since many of our missions are not ELT-related (homeland security, disaster relief, CD, o-rides, fly-a-teacher, and even many SAR missions). 

Unfortunately CAP and the Air Force have come up with this target for flight hours and everyone feels obligated to meet it by doing everything possible to exclude member-owned aircraft.