ES Qaulification Badge Proposal

[arajca]

I am in the final stages of preparing my ES Qualification Badge proposal for submittal. It has changed significantly from the original version I posted a couple years ago. I plan to submit it by 30 Apr 2016. Looking for CONSTRUCTIVE comments and suggestions.

[Eclipse]

Adoption should be instead of the SARDOG, not an option.

The insignia are the wrong shape, and too squishy, but that's a flavor thing.  I don't like the IC badge, either.

Only one "occupational" and one aviation should be worn.

[Gunsotsu]

As CERT "leaders" are chosen and tasked by the IC, the proposal to recognize individuals as such is problematic. As many CERT programs offer advanced training to trained members that chose to actively volunteer with their community department of emergency services/management, a better approach would be recognize those with additional training beyond the basic CERT course with a leader/senior badge, and those certified as active train-the-trainer personnel the chief/master badge.

[RogueLeader]

I like the concept. 
Question:
As PSC requires ABOD or GBD, and both of those qualifications have specialty badges/ratings for the basic qualifications (Mission Scanner or GTM) does that NEED another badge?  I can see it as it shows further progression, but at the same time, the current badges are adequate for what we have.

As to the other basic qualifications, I totally agree that there should be badges to recognize personnel for their achievements.

I don't see specifically that they are designated as "Specialty Badge" for proper placement according to CAPR 35-6

[Storm Chaser]

Do we really need more badges?

[Garibaldi]

Do we really need more badges?

Yes. So much yes.

[arajca]

I like the concept. 
Question:
As PSC requires ABOD or GBD, and both of those qualifications have specialty badges/ratings for the basic qualifications (Mission Scanner or GTM) does that NEED another badge?  I can see it as it shows further progression, but at the same time, the current badges are adequate for what we have.

As to the other basic qualifications, I totally agree that there should be badges to recognize personnel for their achievements.

I don't see specifically that they are designated as "Specialty Badge" for proper placement according to CAPR 35-6

Currently, there is no insignia to denote an AOBD vs a MP/MO/MS. If you read the details regarding the master GT badge, I propose removing it from GBD's and making it more of an overall field team leader with GT and DR quals.

[arajca]

As CERT "leaders" are chosen and tasked by the IC, the proposal to recognize individuals as such is problematic. As many CERT programs offer advanced training to trained members that chose to actively volunteer with their community department of emergency services/management, a better approach would be recognize those with additional training beyond the basic CERT course with a leader/senior badge, and those certified as active train-the-trainer personnel the chief/master badge.

What advanced training would be appropriate for a higher badge and what would not? What happens when a Trainer stops being an active trainer?

[Spam]

Do we really need more badges?

I don't think we do, but apparently I'm alone on this, in the festival of Cosplay that CAP (and CAPTALK) occasionally become.

Todays stats on posts in Captalk:
"Uniforms and Awards" group: 95,772 posts

... where this isn't even a core Mission, but of those three, we have:
"ES and Operations" group: 37,408 posts (only 39% as much interest as badges)
"Cadet Programs" group: 24,980 posts (only 26% as much interest as uniforms)
"Aerospace Education" group: a paltry 4,348 posts (not even 5% as much interest in aerospace as in dress up).


What an organization this could be, were we to redirect this enthusiasm towards planning, organizing, and conducting meaningful training, on providing interesting and educational AE content, and having exciting and useful mentoring and development of cadets. (and yeah, once again, I've done my share of cosplay at 'Cons, in my day, so I get the impulse to play dress up and yeah, I get that the ribbons are they only pay for some).


Arajca, I apologize if this isn't the constructive commentary that you were looking for, but in honesty you seem to be a highly motivated, intelligent, well organized officer, who has so much to offer, beyond mere uniform proposals. I would LOVE to see AE, ES, or CP modules from you, instead - I'd bet they'd be outstanding.


V/R
Spam

[Storm Chaser]

I like the concept. 
Question:
As PSC requires ABOD or GBD, and both of those qualifications have specialty badges/ratings for the basic qualifications (Mission Scanner or GTM) does that NEED another badge?  I can see it as it shows further progression, but at the same time, the current badges are adequate for what we have.

As to the other basic qualifications, I totally agree that there should be badges to recognize personnel for their achievements.

I don't see specifically that they are designated as "Specialty Badge" for proper placement according to CAPR 35-6

Currently, there is no insignia to denote an AOBD vs a MP/MO/MS.

Following U.S. Air Force (and CAP) tradition, we don't need an AOBD badge. Every AOBD must have an Observer or Pilot rating, which always take precedence over other aviation related qualifications or functions.

[RogueLeader]

What about this?
GT badges stay the same

MS= Basic MO Wings
MO=Senior MO Wings
ABOD= Command MO Wings
MP ratings stay the same

PSC= IC Basic Badge
OSC= IC Senior Badge
IC 3-1= IC Master badge

[Storm Chaser]

Again, it's unnecessary. A member can become a Mission Observer after a minimum of four sorties. In contrast, it takes a member three years and 100 flight hours as a Mission Observer to earn the Senior rating. Do we really want to water it down that much? The more badges we have and the easier they are to earn, the less meaningful they are. That's the big problem with CAP; we give badges and ribbons for everything. Making more badges is not the solution.

[HGjunkie]

I'd be in favor of dropping the GTM-specific badge and instead make it a general field qualification badge (UDF, GTM, CERT, what have you...). It would look cleaner on the badge as well to drop the GT or DR or UDF designators. You could then use the star levels to show progression in any non-specific track through experience/leadership levels.

[Eclipse]

We need to remove "CERT" from this conversation and CAP nomenclature in general.

It's not, by design, a "CAP Thing".  Local municipalities have CERT teams and perform the qualifications.  It's supposed to be
local people providing what is essentially self and neighbor care.

At the point CAP is involved, your incident has, by definition, exceeded "local" scope, and CAP isn't coming in as a
"CERT", even if the duties might look the same.

If I'm going to go and be on my village's CERT, I don't need CAP, and my experience as a Wing ESO is that when you talk to
these local agencies and orgs (SARCouncils, EMAs, ARC), they would love our mailing list to recruit more people, but have no particular
interest in CAP responding as an organization.

[Luis R. Ramos]

    ^
    +1

That is what I am seeing in New York City.

It seems the local Civil Defense is giving classes and organizing meetings, but with the intention on garnering volunteers.

[Storm Chaser]

I think there's value to having CERT type training, but should be conducted in house. A DR qualification would be more appropriate, if we ever get one. But nothing prevents us from doing the training.

[Spaceman3750]

I worked for quite a while to earn my GT master badge. The GT master badge wasn't why I became a GBD, mind you, but I'd like to not have it taken away because someone got their feelings hurt that they don't have one too.

[HGjunkie]

I worked for quite a while to earn my GT master badge. The GT master badge wasn't why I became a GBD, mind you, but I'd like to not have it taken away because someone got their feelings hurt that they don't have one too.

It wouldn't affect people who already earned the old badges, but certainly there is some merit in creating a unified "ground pounder" badge (and probably phasing out the GT-specific badge) to encompass most of the ES specialties. Plus it would give some people more incentives to actually pursue more qualifications than just GTM (like UDF) if they could earn a bit of bling for their training. Particularly cadets. A lot of cadets tend to get GT qualified, get the badge, and then do nothing with the rating.

[Angus]

Do we really need more badges?

I don't think we do, but apparently I'm alone on this, in the festival of Cosplay that CAP (and CAPTALK) occasionally become.

Todays stats on posts in Captalk:
"Uniforms and Awards" group: 95,772 posts

... where this isn't even a core Mission, but of those three, we have:
"ES and Operations" group: 37,408 posts (only 39% as much interest as badges)
"Cadet Programs" group: 24,980 posts (only 26% as much interest as uniforms)
"Aerospace Education" group: a paltry 4,348 posts (not even 5% as much interest in aerospace as in dress up).


What an organization this could be, were we to redirect this enthusiasm towards planning, organizing, and conducting meaningful training, on providing interesting and educational AE content, and having exciting and useful mentoring and development of cadets. (and yeah, once again, I've done my share of cosplay at 'Cons, in my day, so I get the impulse to play dress up and yeah, I get that the ribbons are they only pay for some).


Arajca, I apologize if this isn't the constructive commentary that you were looking for, but in honesty you seem to be a highly motivated, intelligent, well organized officer, who has so much to offer, beyond mere uniform proposals. I would LOVE to see AE, ES, or CP modules from you, instead - I'd bet they'd be outstanding.


V/R
Spam

I have to agree we don't need any more badges.  If we make them so every qualification wears a badge and make it easier to for lack of better term "move up a badge" it makes the badges mean less. 

[Eclipse]

I worked for quite a while to earn my GT master badge. The GT master badge wasn't why I became a GBD, mind you, but I'd like to not have it taken away because someone got their feelings hurt that they don't have one too.

This certainly needs to be considered.  Adding a badge for base staff jobs has been on the table for years, but the
current badges should probably stay as-is.

Another factor should probably be who would actually wear them - due I would hazard to age, maturity, and general bling fatigue - the base staff people tend to be less concerned about
the uniform in general, and many elect to wear just the golf shirt (despite the whites being required).

Not much point in casting badges for people who will never wear them. (yes, I know you can get them embroidered, most look terrible).

[Майор Хаткевич]

Do we really need more badges?

I don't think we do, but apparently I'm alone on this, in the festival of Cosplay that CAP (and CAPTALK) occasionally become.

Todays stats on posts in Captalk:
"Uniforms and Awards" group: 95,772 posts

... where this isn't even a core Mission, but of those three, we have:
"ES and Operations" group: 37,408 posts (only 39% as much interest as badges)
"Cadet Programs" group: 24,980 posts (only 26% as much interest as uniforms)
"Aerospace Education" group: a paltry 4,348 posts (not even 5% as much interest in aerospace as in dress up).


What an organization this could be, were we to redirect this enthusiasm towards planning, organizing, and conducting meaningful training, on providing interesting and educational AE content, and having exciting and useful mentoring and development of cadets. (and yeah, once again, I've done my share of cosplay at 'Cons, in my day, so I get the impulse to play dress up and yeah, I get that the ribbons are they only pay for some).


Arajca, I apologize if this isn't the constructive commentary that you were looking for, but in honesty you seem to be a highly motivated, intelligent, well organized officer, who has so much to offer, beyond mere uniform proposals. I would LOVE to see AE, ES, or CP modules from you, instead - I'd bet they'd be outstanding.


V/R
Spam

To be fair, most of the new members on this board tend to start a LOT of "how do I wear X" topics, which bring on a lot of answers.

[Storm Chaser]

A mission base badge is not a terrible idea, I supposed. But I still don't think we need all the badges that are being proposed on this thread.

One thing I would like to see regarding these badges is a term correction on the next revision of CAPM 39-1. I would like the term for these badges to change from "occupational" badges to "qualification" badges, which is what they really are. CAPM 39-1 borrowed the term from the Air Force, which does have occupational badges. Our specialty track badges are the closest thing to Air Force occupational badges, although they're a different shape and color, and are worn in the a different location.

[arajca]

I have read the comments here and I am revising my proposal. I'm still not dealing with the aeronautical badges at this time. I am going to infuriate the GT folks by proposing a consolidated "Field Team" badge for GT, UDF and the various DR qualifications. The current GT badges would be phased out. FTM - member and FTL - Team Leader are defined. I'm leaning toward a Strike Team Leader qual for the master level FT badge. Let's be realistic, GBD is not a field qualification. Getting there requires field training, but the qualification itself is not a field qualification. Just like AOBD is not a flying qualification.

This would lead to just 3 non-flying ES qualification badges - Base Staff, Field Teams, and Incident Commander. Not a huge increase in badges, just adding 1 and replacing another.

[etodd]

Do we really need more badges?

Doesn't the 101 card cover it? Fits in your wallet and no worries about how to wear it.

[Storm Chaser]

I have read the comments here and I am revising my proposal. I'm still not dealing with the aeronautical badges at this time. I am going to infuriate the GT folks by proposing a consolidated "Field Team" badge for GT, UDF and the various DR qualifications. The current GT badges would be phased out. FTM - member and FTL - Team Leader are defined. I'm leaning toward a Strike Team Leader qual for the master level FT badge. Let's be realistic, GBD is not a field qualification. Getting there requires field training, but the qualification itself is not a field qualification. Just like AOBD is not a flying qualification.

This would lead to just 3 non-flying ES qualification badges - Base Staff, Field Teams, and Incident Commander. Not a huge increase in badges, just adding 1 and replacing another.

I think a few details need to be worked out, but it seems like a more reasonable proposal now.

[PHall]

Do we really need more badges?

Doesn't the 101 card cover it? Fits in your wallet and no worries about how to wear it.

People like bling...

[HGjunkie]

I have read the comments here and I am revising my proposal. I'm still not dealing with the aeronautical badges at this time. I am going to infuriate the GT folks by proposing a consolidated "Field Team" badge for GT, UDF and the various DR qualifications. The current GT badges would be phased out. FTM - member and FTL - Team Leader are defined. I'm leaning toward a Strike Team Leader qual for the master level FT badge. Let's be realistic, GBD is not a field qualification. Getting there requires field training, but the qualification itself is not a field qualification. Just like AOBD is not a flying qualification.

This would lead to just 3 non-flying ES qualification badges - Base Staff, Field Teams, and Incident Commander. Not a huge increase in badges, just adding 1 and replacing another.

Much better proposal IMO. Consolidation is the key... to airpower!

[Storm Chaser]

Do we really need more badges?

Doesn't the 101 card cover it? Fits in your wallet and no worries about how to wear it.

People like bling...

Correction: many CAP members like bling...

...and if some of them can get it in a single weekend, even better.

[arajca]

I have read the comments here and I am revising my proposal. I'm still not dealing with the aeronautical badges at this time. I am going to infuriate the GT folks by proposing a consolidated "Field Team" badge for GT, UDF and the various DR qualifications. The current GT badges would be phased out. FTM - member and FTL - Team Leader are defined. I'm leaning toward a Strike Team Leader qual for the master level FT badge. Let's be realistic, GBD is not a field qualification. Getting there requires field training, but the qualification itself is not a field qualification. Just like AOBD is not a flying qualification.

This would lead to just 3 non-flying ES qualification badges - Base Staff, Field Teams, and Incident Commander. Not a huge increase in badges, just adding 1 and replacing another.

Much better proposal IMO. Consolidation is the key... to airpower!

Unless you're a ground pounder, then you do NOT want the CAS mission consolidated with air superiority mission. Sorry, the F-series are great aircraft, but they can't do the CAS mission like an aircraft built around a really big gun.

[arajca]

Ok, here is the updated version.

[Eclipse]

This shows a lot of thought and effort, but I can' t get behind it - it's trying to align too many things as "equal"
that aren't, not to mention the issue of adding / changing the entire ES structure from a bling perspective before its
been demonstrated that it needs to be changed from an operational perspective.

The effort, for example, to get to Air or Ground is not the same as CUL, and a CERT team or PODs team is certainly not equal in effort or
duties to a GTM3 or UDF.  I'd have no issue with different badges that actually identify the position, but having them all the same doesn't work.

I've said for years I'd have no issue with a general ICS staff badge, but trying to align these disparate duties, absent an entire rework is putting the
cart before the horse. 

Rework the entire ES framework first, then talk about badges if necessary.

[Storm Chaser]

This shows a lot of thought and effort, but I can' t get behind it - it's trying to align too many things as "equal"
that aren't, not to mention the issue of adding / changing the entire ES structure from a bling perspective before its
been demonstrated that it needs to be changed from an operational perspective.

The effort, for example, to get to Air or Ground is not the same as CUL, and a CERT team or PODs team is certainly not equal in effort or
duties to a GTM3 or UDF.  I'd have no issue with different badges that actually identify the position, but having them all the same doesn't work.

I've said for years I'd have no issue with a general ICS staff badge, but trying to align these disparate duties, absent an entire rework is putting the
cart before the horse. 

Rework the entire ES framework first, then talk about badges if necessary.

+1

With this proposal, you can go from Basic to Master depending on the specialty. Why link the badges to specialties anyway? Why not make it based on sorties/missions and time, just like aircrew badges?

I also don't like the incident command staff badges as they look too much like the incident commander badges.

[Angus]

This shows a lot of thought and effort, but I can' t get behind it - it's trying to align too many things as "equal"
that aren't, not to mention the issue of adding / changing the entire ES structure from a bling perspective before its
been demonstrated that it needs to be changed from an operational perspective.

The effort, for example, to get to Air or Ground is not the same as CUL, and a CERT team or PODs team is certainly not equal in effort or
duties to a GTM3 or UDF.  I'd have no issue with different badges that actually identify the position, but having them all the same doesn't work.

I've said for years I'd have no issue with a general ICS staff badge, but trying to align these disparate duties, absent an entire rework is putting the
cart before the horse. 

Rework the entire ES framework first, then talk about badges if necessary.

I agree whole heartedly, this rework is more about the bling than anything else.  Let's rework the ES framework to reflect the current ES missions we're currently working then if we need to come back to the bling.

[Storm Chaser]

I agree. We have several specialty qualifications listed in CAPR 60-3 that never got an SQTR. We also have an increasing DR role with no specific training or qualification to support it. And many of our SQTRs and Task Guides are in need of an overhaul. This proposal is not without its merits, but another badge should be at the bottom of the priority list right now.

[arajca]

To all those complaining about the qualifications and whether the current framework should be overhauled before I submit my proposal, let's see YOUR proposals for that.

[Eclipse]

To all those complaining about the qualifications and whether the current framework should be overhauled before I submit my proposal, let's see YOUR proposals for that.

You don't have to know how to fix a tire to recognize it's flat.

[arajca]

You're complaining about it. Try fixing it.

[Eclipse]

You're complaining about it. Try fixing it.

That's an ad hominem.  I'm not tasked with, nor in a position to "fix" CAP's ES framework, nor is anyone asking me to.

That doesn't change the fact that anyone looking to make impactful, meaningful change, shouldn't be starting from the badges,
they should be starting from the "mission", and frankly what the "mission" is, isn't clear to anyone anymore.

Until NHQ sorts that out, these conversations will be like a company trying to do ISO 9000 and Six Sigma with one project team.

For example, I would argue DR is not a separate qual from GT, just a definition of protocol and ability, and CERT isn't a CAP "thing"
and we certainly shouldn't be giving it a CAP badge. These two items alone complicated enough.

[Storm Chaser]

I think adding DR specific tasks to the GT specialties would help with the training and qualification part. Alternatively, DR could be an add-on to the GT qualifications. Frankly, there's more than one way to address our current gap. But one thing is certain, if we want to expand our role in DR, we need more DR focused training.

[RogueLeader]

But one thing is certain, if we want to expand our role in DR, we need more DR focused training.

Such as?

Not that I disagree, but am curious as to what you envision.

[Eclipse]

Such as?

Pretty much "everything" - CAP's GT curriculum is focused on missing aircraft and persons searching along with self-care
and the ability to operate safely in non-urban areas for up to 72 hours.  It really doesn't speak at all to DR beyond the
self-reliance and preparedness.  So a GTM can be assumed to be self-sufficient in a DA for 24 hours, but doesn't know much beyond that,
including...

Sanitation and hygiene when dealing with the general pubic in a DA without functional utilities.

Personal safety in a DA without normal police, fire, and public works response.

Proper use and assembly of sand bags (yes, you can do it wrong and make things worse).

Damage assessment of dwellings and other structures.

Shelter management operations.

PODs management

Food, water, and other resource distribution

House to house well-being checks.

More I'm missing.

[arajca]

You're complaining about it. Try fixing it.

That's an ad hominem.  I'm not tasked with, nor in a position to "fix" CAP's ES framework, nor is anyone asking me to.

That doesn't change the fact that anyone looking to make impactful, meaningful change, shouldn't be starting from the badges,
they should be starting from the "mission", and frankly what the "mission" is, isn't clear to anyone anymore.

Until NHQ sorts that out, these conversations will be like a company trying to do ISO 9000 and Six Sigma with one project team.

For example, I would argue DR is not a separate qual from GT, just a definition of protocol and ability, and CERT isn't a CAP "thing"
and we certainly shouldn't be giving it a CAP badge. These two items alone complicated enough.

And where did I say I was trying "to make impactful, meaningful change"?

[Storm Chaser]

Such as?

Pretty much "everything" - CAP's GT curriculum is focused on missing aircraft and persons searching along with self-care
and the ability to operate safely in non-urban areas for up to 72 hours.  It really doesn't speak at all to DR beyond the
self-reliance and preparedness.  So a GTM can be assumed to be self-sufficient in a DA for 24 hours, but doesn't know much beyond that,
including...

Sanitation and hygiene when dealing with the general pubic in a DA without functional utilities.

Personal safety in a DA without normal police, fire, and public works response.

Proper use and assembly of sand bags (yes, you can do it wrong and make things worse).

Damage assessment of dwellings and other structures.

Shelter management operations.

PODs management

Food, water, and other resource distribution

House to house well-being checks.

More I'm missing.

I think Eclipse covered it. Those are my thoughts as well.

[Shawn W.]

Sanitation and hygiene when dealing with the general pubic in a DA without functional utilities.

Personal safety in a DA without normal police, fire, and public works response.

Proper use and assembly of sand bags (yes, you can do it wrong and make things worse).

Damage assessment of dwellings and other structures.

Shelter management operations.

PODs management

Food, water, and other resource distribution

House to house well-being checks.

+1 to that. Such training would be great to have.

[Angus]

Such as?

Pretty much "everything" - CAP's GT curriculum is focused on missing aircraft and persons searching along with self-care
and the ability to operate safely in non-urban areas for up to 72 hours.  It really doesn't speak at all to DR beyond the
self-reliance and preparedness.  So a GTM can be assumed to be self-sufficient in a DA for 24 hours, but doesn't know much beyond that,
including...

Sanitation and hygiene when dealing with the general pubic in a DA without functional utilities.

Personal safety in a DA without normal police, fire, and public works response.

Proper use and assembly of sand bags (yes, you can do it wrong and make things worse).

Damage assessment of dwellings and other structures.

Shelter management operations.

PODs management

Food, water, and other resource distribution

House to house well-being checks.

More I'm missing.

The Red Cross covers most of this and in times of disaster is stretched pretty thin so having us trained in this to assist is a great idea.  There are a few provisos though, having been a part of ARC shelter management only our older cadets would be able to work, but that's not unlike what we have now with age restriction on GTL.  The classes are very interesting and the field training is actually kind of fun the way they set it up.  I highly encourage everyone to call their local ARC Chapter and see if they'd be willing to come and show you what to do.

[Eclipse]

The Red Cross covers most of this and in times of disaster is stretched pretty thin so having us trained in this to assist is a great idea. 

We've actually done both in my wing.  The former was a win for all involved and provided resources the local ARC didn't have.  It took
minimal onsite training in the basic principles, though it was agreed that it would have been better if we came in with the actual
ARC training vs. a game-day orientation.

That's the kind of thing that should be included in, and coming out of the ARC MOU vs. "encouraged to work together".

The latter has on occasion involved cadets in overnight shelters, and while nothing has happened to date, generally raises the
ORM hairs on the back of seniors' necks.  Not everyone displaced in an incident is a nice person.

The more far-reaching challenge with organizations like the ARC, SA, and the local health agencies running POD Sites, in my direct experience, is that while they are excited to get ahold of our contact lists to try and solicit volunteers, they aren't especially interested in us being there in a CAP capacity, in uniform, with all that entails.

[Angus]

The Red Cross covers most of this and in times of disaster is stretched pretty thin so having us trained in this to assist is a great idea. 

The latter has on occasion involved cadets in overnight shelters, and while nothing has happened to date, generally raises the
ORM hairs on the back of seniors' necks.  Not everyone displaced in an incident is a nice person.

For shelters unless it's different State by State with what ARC has, our cadets wouldn't be allowed to stay in the shelters with the displaced residents.  It was a liability, heck even some ARC volunteers wouldn't be allowed to stay again based on age.  If I remember you had to be a minimum of 16 to stay as a volunteer.  Also some of the staffing jobs even trained seniors wouldn't be allowed to handle.  Mainly the intake of the clients into the shelter, this was for confidentiality purposes. 

[Eclipse]

^ Yep. Thus the !! questions raised.

[Angus]

While I was with ARC before I stepped back with them since they knew I was in CAP and knew the right people, there was talk about what we could and couldn't do.  Younger cadets were definitely able to come in and help with the setup of the shelter and help with some minor staffing during the day.  Seniors could help with setup and maintenance but also be able to stay and help work the overnight. 

The fun stuff for cadets was out in the field conducting DA.  We had been looking at using joint teams, even had a couple of SAREX's that were joint. 

[Gunsotsu]

Sanitation and hygiene when dealing with the general pubic in a DA without functional utilities.

Personal safety in a DA without normal police, fire, and public works response.

Proper use and assembly of sand bags (yes, you can do it wrong and make things worse).

Damage assessment of dwellings and other structures.

Shelter management operations.

PODs management

Food, water, and other resource distribution

House to house well-being checks.

More I'm missing.

Sounds an awful like a CERT course to me. Even though you don't see the benefit, this is exactly what much of the course covers. The problem is the training varies so much from municipality to municipality. I'm fortunate that the CERT courses I've taken, including the advanced training, are taught by my city's fire department and office of emergency management. There lies the problem, other city's around me aren't as lucky.

[Eclipse]

Sounds an awful like a CERT course to me. Even though you don't see the benefit, this is exactly what much of the course covers.

Missing the point.

If you're involved in CERT, great, prepare, help when asked, enjoy the experience.  It's intended to be a local situation, with
neighbors helping neighbors.  Thus the "C".  "CERT", as a concept, is not supposed to be "deployable", even though some organizations
have tried to stretch the idea into that.

If you're going elsewhere, it's not "C", is it?

CAP is a national organization which has a much further reach, significantly more resources, and a much slower time-to-task due to the
nature of mission approval and the dispersal of the membership.  There aren't that many different ways to slice the DR orange, and many
of the things which need to be done look the same and are the same between the different level of organizations and assets.

That doesn't mean "CERT", as a "thing" belongs in the CAP parlance, and certainly not as an ES qual.  Training in similar tasks, fine,
but just as typing CAP assets within SARTECH isn't going to get us one single additional mission, this won't either, but it sounds like a "thing",
and some members randomly get more work vis their CERT then in CAP, so so it leaks into the discussion.

What will get CAP (back) to the table are:

1 - more people.

2 - Experience ES staff maintaining ongoing positive relationships with EMAs

3 - more people

4 - NHQ getting involved in selling CAP as the high-level asset with 3 & 4- letter agencies that it's supposed to be, instead of a day-10 afterthought.

5 - more people

6 - MOUs that detail required call-outs and response, not "encouraging cooperation"

7 - more people

8 - proficient, repeatable, scale-able execution that matches the rhetoric. If your wing's ES legacy starts with "that one time...", or doesn't
include ops within the last FY, you're doing it wrong.

Also, we need more people.

[Holding Pattern]

Sounds an awful like a CERT course to me. Even though you don't see the benefit, this is exactly what much of the course covers.

Missing the point.

If you're involved in CERT, great, prepare, help when asked, enjoy the experience.  It's intended to be a local situation, with
neighbors helping neighbors.  Thus the "C".  "CERT", as a concept, is not supposed to be "deployable", even though some organizations
have tried to stretch the idea into that.

If you're going elsewhere, it's not "C", is it?

CAP is a national organization which has a much further reach, significantly more resources, and a much slower time-to-task due to the
nature of mission approval and the dispersal of the membership.  There aren't that many different way to slice the DR orange, and many
of the things which need to be done look the same and are the same between the different level of organizations and assets.

That doesn't mean "CERT", as a "thing" belongs in the CAP parlance, and certainly not as an ES qual.  Training in similar tasks, fine,
but just as typing CAP assests within SARTECH isn't going to get us one single additional mission, this won't either.

What will get CAP (back) to the table are:

1 - more people.

2 - Experience ES staff mainatingin ongoign positive relationships with EMAs

3 - more people

4 - NHQ gettign involved in selling CAP as the high-level asset with 3 & 4- letter agencies that it's supposed to be, instead of a day-10 afterthought.

5 - more people

6 - proficient, repeatable, scale-able execution that matches the rhetoric. If your wing's ES legacy starts with "that one time...", or doesn't
include ops within the last FY, you're doing it wrong.

Also, we need more people.

Are you trying to say that we may possibly need more people?

[Eclipse]

I think we should certainly consider the idea.

[Angus]

I think we should certainly consider the idea.

Which is great for our recruiting.  Membership has been on the decline so it would be nice to see it ticking back up again. 

[Eclipse]

I would say "decline" is being somewhat benevolent to the situation considering an ~10% loss of membership since October,
which doesn't account for members still on the books who are simply not participating but are still being counted as "active".

[Angus]

Well this is a family board figured I'd clean it up a bit.  If were at the O-Club I'd be a bit more verbose.   

[Gunsotsu]

What a wonderfully narrow idea of what a community entails. I'll be sure to let the local OEM and the state OEM know they can't pull available assets from qualified CERT programs in other localities for their callouts. Put away the Garand, I'll get off your lawn now.

[Eclipse]

I'll be sure to let the local OEM and the state OEM know they can't pull available assets from qualified CERT programs in other localities for their callouts. Put away the Garand, I'll get off your lawn now.

com·mu·ni·ty kəˈmyo͞onədē/
noun
1. a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common.

Define "other localities" - the town next door is reasonable and falls with the definition above and my characterization.

CAP call-outs are rarely that in today's reality of wing size vs. member distribution.

[Spaceman3750]

I actually don't mind the idea of a local squadron working with their local EMA/OEM and setting up a CERT team, especially considering that CAP recognizes the qual, but it should be done in coordination with Wing ES and possibly the NOC so that the NOC and the wing duty officer/ultimately responsible IC know what to do with the call when it comes in. Does 60-3 actually define what a CERT team is in a CAP context or just a ground/UDF team? Can you deploy as just a CERT team or do you have to be a ground team that also happens to be CERT qualified?

It doesn't work in the paradigm of many wings "everyone come here and we'll assemble a team" or "Call around and find people and let me know when you have a team", but the squadron is the community-level unit of CAP and done right it could be a great way to work in the local community.

[Eclipse]

There is currently no definition of a "CERT Team" in a CAP parlance beyond the below.

CAPR 60-3. Page 27:
"Note 4: New training programs and levels in certain specialties are currently in development. In
order to allow enough time for proper testing and fielding of new curricula and to avoid delaying
the release of this regulation, these new specialties were included in the regulation even though
CAP is not ready to implement all of these specialties at this time. As these new or revised
specialties are implemented, transition guidance including grandfathering, equivalency, and
currency procedures will be posted on the NHQ CAP/DOS website and personnel will be
notified via the chain of command. "

I would argue CERT type activities require at least GT3.  UDF has no training beyond hard-tarmac searching.
It is not "mini-GTL" as some people assert.

The idea that you would allow slick-sleeve members, especially cadets, or people with a wet GES into a DA to "help",
as has been done in the recent past, ignore the huge ORM on that kind of activity, and risks everyone involved, including those
CAP seeks to help.

[Spaceman3750]

There is currently no definition of a "CERT Team" in a CAP parlance beyond the below.

CAPR 60-3. Page 27:
"Note 4: New training programs and levels in certain specialties are currently in development. In
order to allow enough time for proper testing and fielding of new curricula and to avoid delaying
the release of this regulation, these new specialties were included in the regulation even though
CAP is not ready to implement all of these specialties at this time. As these new or revised
specialties are implemented, transition guidance including grandfathering, equivalency, and
currency procedures will be posted on the NHQ CAP/DOS website and personnel will be
notified via the chain of command. "

I would argue CERT type activities require at least GT3.  UDF has no training beyond hard-tarmac searching.
It is not "mini-GTL" as some people assert.

The idea that you would allow slick-sleeve members, especially cadets, or people with a wet GES into a DA to "help",
as has been done in the recent past, ignore the huge ORM on that kind of activity, and risks everyone involved, including those
CAP seeks to help.

Except... We do have a CERT qualification - you complete the DHS/FEMA compliant training, upload your certificate, and it goes through chain for approval. Therefore, these members are not completely "wet", and haveh at least the minimum DHS-mandated level of training, which CAP has apparently evaluated and accepted for our purposes.

I'm not saying that the concept isn't without problems in its current form, but it's worth exploring. Not every incident has to be a production. You designate an IC, call the local ground team or CERT team, and go do good work.

[Storm Chaser]

I think CAP's recognition of the CERT qual in the 101 card is meant to (somewhat) fill our DR training gap. In fact, not only is the CERT qual recognized in CAPR 60-3, the regulation defines the composition of a CAP CERT and allows for their employment during an incident.

As an IC, I can deploy a three-member CERT, as opposed to a four-member GT. And the CERT leader doesn't have to be a qualified GTL. This can potentially make additional resources available during an emergency response.

Is this a CAP thing? Well, it depends. I would prefer to have CAP-specific DR training (whether as a separate DR qual or part of the GTM SQTRs), but since we don't, I like the flexibility of being able to employ these members who have received CERT training outside of CAP. I would ask the following questions: Is CAP taking advantage of these qualified members? And if so, with what level of success? If CERT is not benefiting CAP, then why not develop the necessary training in-house to fulfill our needs?