CAP Talk

Less than a week until CAP loses approximately 40-50% of its total ES capability!  Well, at least based on what things are looking like in my Wing in terms of the reports on those that have completed the required NIMS training. 

The surprising thing to me is that the biggest problem isn't in the highlevel courses, but in the easy to complete internet courses.  IS-800 seems to have the lowest completion rates in my area. 

My longstanding prediction that there would be a last-minute reprieve on this date hasn't come true yet, but lets see what happens next weekend....

is it really that bad??

If there is anyone in the midwest that needs help please do not hesitate to e-mail.  I would be available to help with some training. 

I don't think it is - we can't do much about the in-residence classes, but by me I believe it is more an issue of improper recording of the completion.

For those specialties that require IS-700 and haven't done it, at worst there will be an eye-opener day and they will knock it out at mission base, etc.

Half the ES folks in my unit are lacking 700, the most critical need for us.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 27, 2008, 03:53:30 AM
Less than a week until CAP loses approximately 40-50% of its total ES capability!

Well I "punched this ticket" so to speak back in May 2008 & October 2008 for the 100/200/700/800 on line ones -- One sitting at the computer was for about 5 hours-- Not much fun, somewhat interesting information.  Still got to find a "local" weekend 300 course after the first of the year.      

Since I think CAP is in "the numbers game", so to speak, I'd be very surprised IF they pull the plug on "CAP qualified", capable ES types, and show such a large decrease in ES qualified personnel on their reports to outside agencies.  Even from a practical mission response standpoint, geographically you've got to have some ES types close to the area to respond.   It would be nutty to send a UDF team for example from 100-125 miles away, just because the local team (15 miles from the potential incident) didn't complete all the ICS requirements.
I do think that there were problems in getting enough in residence classes set up in the 300/400 series in at least some wings.
 
Perhaps though, this entire drill will show actually who really is interested in CAP emergency services both cadet & senior wise.  Maybe the potential 25-50% reduction in ES staffing capability is the harsh reality.
RM

As of Nov 30, 516 courses still have to be completed in WIWG.

They aren't "pulling the plug"  Everyone needs to understand this.

They are SUSPENDING your qualifications NOT revoking them.

This means that you will have 2 stars next to the suspended qual's on your 101, and anyone who views your records will see that you are suspended.

As far as showing in national reporting numbers or whatever it won't show a decrease as far as mission resources until these qual's expire from non-compliance.

Quote from: ♠SARKID♠ on December 27, 2008, 05:19:37 AM
As of Nov 30, 516 courses still have to be completed in WIWG.

Is that 516 of the currently ES qualified, or is that 516 of the wing total bodies do not have the courses?

All of the active ES-ers in my squadron have complied - even some of us not interested in ES.

Quote from: Trung Si Ma on December 27, 2008, 05:26:23 AM

Quote from: ♠SARKID♠ on December 27, 2008, 05:19:37 AM
As of Nov 30, 516 courses still have to be completed in WIWG.

Is that 516 of the currently ES qualified, or is that 516 of the wing total bodies do not have the courses?

All of the active ES-ers in my squadron have complied - even some of us not interested in ES.

It includes all the members who will lose ratings if they do not finish their courses, and its "courses that need to be taken", not "bodies".  Some of those numbers are the same person needing multiple classes.

Also, I found a more recent document, its down to 271

Quote from: IceNine on December 27, 2008, 05:23:06 AM
They aren't "pulling the plug"  Everyone needs to understand this.

They are SUSPENDING your qualifications NOT revoking them.

This means that you will have 2 stars next to the suspended qual's on your 101, and anyone who views your records will see that you are suspended.

As far as showing in national reporting numbers or whatever it won't show a decrease as far as mission resources until these qual's expire from non-compliance.

So Let me understand this  ???.  Example:  An ES mission tasking for your squadron comes up e.g. UDF ELT mission.   IF a member is suspended qualification wise than technically he/she can't participate in the mission, correct?

Again, IF you are suspended than you are NOT available for ES missions & thus shouldn't be reported at the group, wing, national level as being a "resource".   Wouldn't that be the honest, reality results  of the NB policy implementation?
RM

^ You are correct with a skew.

You aren't reporting anything.  The system simply doesn't modify the resource reports for suspended qualifications.

This is of course based off of the assumption that the system works exactly as it does now.

I went in a few days ago to play with things and see what happened if I suspended my deputy's qual's and the numbers on my resource reports remained the same.

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on December 27, 2008, 02:42:10 PM
So Let me understand this  ???.  Example:  An ES mission tasking for your squadron comes up e.g. UDF ELT mission.   IF a member is suspended qualification wise than technically he/she can't participate in the mission, correct?

Its not "technically".  Stay home, don't call us, and we won't call you until you get your stuff done.

I'm making this point because I know that this is going to be the next round of uncomfortable conversations we commanders are going to have, as despite the months of advisories, weeks of warnings, and days of desperate emails sent by ESO's all over the country, plenty of Goobers will make they excuse that they "didn't know" or "didn't have time".

So just confirming, for pilots, its ICS 200 and 700?

Go look here (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/2008_04_10_NIMS.pdfl)

Quote from: IceNine on December 27, 2008, 11:24:10 PM
Go look here (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/2008_04_10_NIMS.pdfl)

The link was no good.  Got another.....

Found the problem.  The link had an"l" after the ".pdf".  Try this link:

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/2008_04_10_NIMS.pdf

I am uploading study guides for 100, 200, 700, and 800.

Maybe some folks will find these handy, and perhaps accelerate their learning process a bit. They are in essence a more "to the point" reference to assist you in getting through what you need to know to achieve course standards.

I recommend you take 700 first, then move on to the others you may not have "mastered" yet.

Good luck. Happy Ctrl+F 'ing  :)

Quote from: Eclipse on December 27, 2008, 04:41:05 AM
but by me I believe it is more an issue of improper recording of the completion.

I know that has been a problem.  Some folks have gotten the (wrong) idea that if they take the online courses that they automatically get posted in e-services -- they don't. 

Big surprise, I know - the testing site appears to be slammed...

Quote from: Eclipse on December 27, 2008, 04:53:04 PM

Its not "technically".  Stay home, don't call us, and we won't call you until you get your stuff done.

I'm making this point because I know that this is going to be the next round of uncomfortable conversations we commanders are going to have, as despite the months of advisories, weeks of warnings, and days of desperate emails sent by ESO's all over the country, plenty of Goobers will make they excuse that they "didn't know" or "didn't have time".

Gee, I've been told by a long time/very high ranking CAP member that historically it takes a lot longer to implement things in CAP than one would think & that's the way it is.  Basically giving everyone only 8 1/2 months (April 2008 policy letter)  to complete all the on line as well as the (especially)l ICS 300 in residence seems a bit aggressive.  Perhaps it should have been 1 year for the on linee courses, 18 months for ICS 300 in residence, & 2 Years for ICS 400 in residence.

There's nothing in AF current Policy or Regulations, regarding AF Assigned Missions to CAP that require these courses.   Personally, I've successfully got all the on line FEMA training done; BUT frankly I can't undestand WHY CAP would start to limit mission staffing resources availability because a few on line courses hadn't been completed, especially when your primary missions are from a customer that could care less whether these courses are completed or not  ???
RM         

Actually the reason for the short deadline isn't that CAP is being aggressive about it -- in fact it is because CAP has been somewhat on the slow side to implement these requirements.  But, we've got several other threads about NIMS implementation in general.  With this thread, I'm interested in the direct impact of the upcoming deadline on CAP ES capabilities at all levels. 

Only thing i'm missing is ICS 300 and 400 and I haven't finished my GT3 requirements yet, still need First aid and another mission number.

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on December 28, 2008, 08:27:25 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on December 27, 2008, 04:53:04 PM

Its not "technically".  Stay home, don't call us, and we won't call you until you get your stuff done.

I'm making this point because I know that this is going to be the next round of uncomfortable conversations we commanders are going to have, as despite the months of advisories, weeks of warnings, and days of desperate emails sent by ESO's all over the country, plenty of Goobers will make they excuse that they "didn't know" or "didn't have time".

Gee, I've been told by a long time/very high ranking CAP member that historically it takes a lot longer to implement things in CAP than one would think & that's the way it is.  Basically giving everyone only 8 1/2 months (April 2008 policy letter)  to complete all the on line as well as the (especially)l ICS 300 in residence seems a bit aggressive.  Perhaps it should have been 1 year for the on linee courses, 18 months for ICS 300 in residence, & 2 Years for ICS 400 in residence.

There's nothing in AF current Policy or Regulations, regarding AF Assigned Missions to CAP that require these courses.  Personally, I've successfully got all the on line FEMA training done; BUT frankly I can't understand WHY CAP would start to limit mission staffing resources availability because a few on line courses hadn't been completed, especially when your primary missions are from a customer that could care less whether these courses are completed or not  ???
RM

8+ months to take a 15 minute online test is plenty of time.  Anyone active enough to need the classes was well aware the requirement was on its way before April, and has been brow-beaten since then about the requirement.

Why is CAP limiting mission resources?  Because you have to draw the line somewhere, and it might as well be here.  When pilots and field assets start being told they can't play anymore they will step up or step out, simple as that.

Harsh, maybe.  Unreasonable?  No.

Also, while the 010109 deadline is looming, as Ice and others have said, its not a revocation or "reset to zero" - can't be bothered this week?  Fine, get it done ASAP, odds are no one will call before then and when its done, its all good.

We all want to swim in the big-boy pool, but too many of us want to do that without the work that goes along with it.

QuoteGee, I've been told by a long time/very high ranking CAP member that historically it takes a lot longer to implement things in CAP than one would think & that's the way it is.  Basically giving everyone only 8 1/2 months (April 2008 policy letter)  to complete all the on line as well as the (especially)l ICS 300 in residence seems a bit aggressive.  Perhaps it should have been 1 year for the on linee courses, 18 months for ICS 300 in residence, & 2 Years for ICS 400 in residence.

For the online courses, if you mean to tell me that someone can't complete in 8 1/2 months what only takes a couple of hours then I call "slacker".  Skip that rerun of Matlock for a day and crank out an IS course.
For the classroom ones, I can understand.  I've been trying for a couple of years to make it to an IS-300 course and I'm just finally going to be able to deconflict my scheduling airspace to get to it.

I can't speak for other squadrons, but at ours those who are active in missions have completed the training, at least the online courses.  Now, that's not all those on the books, just those who are active.  I question how much of an impact it will have on real participation, not book numbers.

Well, unlike other areas of CAP, you do have to be moderately active in ES training or missions to retain ES qualifications.  So, while we will undoubtedly lose some of our least active ES personnel, my personal estimate (based on what CG Aux saw when they implemented simlar requirements) is that it will only be about 10-20% will be permanently lost.  Now, I think our initial hit on January 1st will be to lose 40-50%, but once the reality of the situation sets in, I think most of those folks will take the tests within a few months, so the long-term impact won't be that bad. 

I just ran my numbers:

24% of my total members are active enough in ES to appear on the report.

47% of those members are at risk for suspension because of IS-700 (or other).

However, of that number, only about 4 of them are regular responders, with too many most likely going to simply drop off the rolls when their proficiency date hits.

Of the 4, I think at least two of them are complete and just not properly recorded (our state using the WMU is causing some confusion on this).

So, while I could lose probably 40% of my resources on the books, in actuality I'm only at risk for a functional 2% loss at "best", hardly an impact.

Bottom line, everyone I expect to see at a mission base (that I have jurisdiction over), is already done.

The greater issue here is why the numbers involved in ES are so low in total.

I think you're being way too complacent about those numbers.  What I hear you saying is that your first string troops will be there, but you will lose your entire bench and will not be able to respond if only a couple of your primary responders are sick, have to work, or are otherwise unable to show up.  And, that is just for a typical ELT mission, much less a serious search that requires a week or more of all-hands on deck effort. 

While not everyone is always available and always willing to go on a mission that doesn't mean that those that are sometimes available and sometimes willing aren't worth worrying about. 

The 300 and 400 courses are are problematic ones, these courses are not offered in anything I would consider reasonably close nor often.  What I here, they are just a more hands-on version of ICS with a senario driven model.

In the future, I would recommend that CAP actually spend money to have they put on at a group level...or at least with in 100 miles of places (in the case of Brownsville the nearest one was 400 miles away...for us only 200 miles)  There will be one in Corpus Christi in July 2009.

If we want to continue to mandate this sort of thing, which I do believe in, it will be necessary to make in "in house."  We need in house IS 300/400 trainiers. 

As I said, REGIONS, WINGS and GROUPS my have to drop some money and personnel to make that happen.  If not, we are at the mercy of OTHERS.  Networking aside, it is hard to network when no one puts these things on.

Fortunately I don't need the courses at this time. 

Quote from: RiverAux on December 29, 2008, 03:19:51 AM
What I hear you saying is that your first string troops will be there, but you will lose your entire bench and will not be able to respond if only a couple of your primary responders are sick, have to work, or are otherwise unable to show up.  And, that is just for a typical ELT mission, much less a serious search that requires a week or more of all-hands on deck effort. 

That's not what I meant - this gets to normalizing availability vs. once-a year members who show up to a SAREx and fly a sortie just maintain their quals, but never do anything more.

As an example, a couple are TMPs who are not interested in getting to MP or even MO, so their value is questionable at best - all they are interested in is flying at encampments and flight academies - valuable to the CP and the wing as a whole, but hardly an "ES asset" in the spirit of the term.  They get their tickets re-punched each year during the encampment or academies, and we never hear from them the rest of the year.  Safety stand downs, online training and similar are always an issue and a hassle.

The vast majority of my real responders have completed the requirement, the others aren't the bench, they are non-players, which we need to find a way to keep on the books but move to a different category because they never come out to play, ELT, Armageddon, or anything in between.

Sparky - You're right that 300 & 400 are the hands-on training, however I disagree that we should bring this "in-house".

CAP needs to see the "agency agnostic model" that it gets today.  Bring it into CAP with no one from outside and we lose the outside opinions, the contacts, and the real-world of how CAP would integrate into large-scale ICS implementations.

I suppose if its a matter of "do it in house or lose people", you have to "get 'r done", but I would not say that's the preferred method.

I also find it hard to believe that in a state as large as Texas, with all the DHS activity you have with the borders, that there are so few training opportunities.  We're swimming in ICS up North, as long as you take the time to seek it out.

Last summer I was told by a National staffer that a TTT program was going to be initiated for ICS 300 & 400.  Haven't seen or heard anything yet.  NESA used trainers certified by CAP last summer.  I don't know how many members have been CAP certified or how they are certified.

I attended ICS 400 twice - once by a professional trainer and a few months later by a CAP certified trainer.  The difference was as great as night and day.  However, the bottom line for the majority of our folks is that it will not make a significant difference in how they perform.   As a great American intellectual (AKA Larry the Cable Guy) says, "Git-R-Done".

I'm going through 700a now, and yes, it's a pain.  IMHO, there is a LOT of corporate "fluff" and executive speak, with a little technical info sprinkled here and there.

Definately not much the average member needs, IMHO, but we all have to eat it to stay active.

Interesting - the preparedness module makes it clear that training should be limited to the appropriate levels of involvement.  The knowlege test even has an example (which I incorrectly answered).

I personally don't think all members should have to go through this level of a course.  If you want to "weed out" members (as insinuated by a few posts), you have easier options.  Just suspend thier ES - any squadron ES officer or CC has that option - or just move them into ghost squadrons.

But I digress...  Gotta love CTRL-F....

Quote from: ThorntonOL on December 28, 2008, 09:25:47 PM
Only thing i'm missing is ICS 300 and 400 and I haven't finished my GT3 requirements yet, still need First aid and another mission number.

Do you have any Command Level Positions?   If you don't you don't have to take the 300 and 400.  Those are just for the top echilon.  IC, MSO, AL, etc.

Quote

...Skip that rerun of Matlock for a day and crank out an IS course.

or do it while you are watching the Matlock rerun (or knock out all of them over Monday Night Football... should have them all completed by halftime). Hey, it isn't like these courses require your undivided attention to master

Quote from: Angus on December 29, 2008, 05:32:57 PM

Quote from: ThorntonOL on December 28, 2008, 09:25:47 PM
Only thing i'm missing is ICS 300 and 400 and I haven't finished my GT3 requirements yet, still need First aid and another mission number.

Do you have any Command Level Positions?   If you don't you don't have to take the 300 and 400.  Those are just for the top echilon.  IC, MSO, AL, etc.

300 is for anything above worker bee. So in our realm, our branch directors and up need at least 300, and 400 kicks in for the queen/king bees.

Looking at the policy letter http://level2.cap.gov/documents/2008_04_10_NIMS.pdf
It looks to me like the GES people, don't loose any their authorization to participate in ES Missions ???  This is good news because sometimes you just need "muscle" for your missions,  senior members that can drive the vehicle for UDF or shuttle from flight line, shuffle some papers at mission base, etc.  BUT I guess couldn't start any training in a speciality?
RM

GES-only members don't have any mission authorization to lose.

We've had this argument before, and certainly didn't resolve it, but there is a school of thought, shared by many, that GES is not a "qualification", but only a pre-req to begin training.

Until you are trainee status in something, you have no business on missions - last time I checked there is no "tactical driver" qualification.

If IS-700 is required for GES, then unless you've completed IS-700, you are not GES.

IS-700 is not required for GES....and there is a duty postion called driver...the only qualifications are GES and a CAP Drivers License.

From the Dec Northcentral Region newsletter, regarding the ICS requirements:

QuoteHow will this affect NCR? As things stand right now the region will have approximately 50% of its mission rated personnel go non-current.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 30, 2008, 03:32:19 AM
IS-700 is not required for GES....

Which just makes my point that it is not a rating, but a pre-requisite to begin training. 

Quote from: lordmonar on December 30, 2008, 03:32:19 AM
and there is a duty position called driver...the only qualifications are GES and a CAP Drivers License.

Cite please...

And your cite saying that a person needs to have more than that to be a driver during a mission (since you made the claim first)? 

Quote from: RiverAux on December 30, 2008, 04:03:26 AM
And your cite saying that a person needs to have more than that to be a driver during a mission (since you made the claim first)? 

A) There is no such thing as a "driver" in the ES curriculum.

B) The requirement to be involved in any mission, is that you are at least a trainee in the specialty you're are signed as.

So to have anyone in the field, with no further training than a DL and GES puts the entire mission at risk, need for muscle or otherwise. "I'll just stay in the car..." is the wrong answer.

Again, if it doesn't say you can, you can't, and it doesn't say you can anywhere in the 60-series.

The fact that GES-seniors driving cadets around, or GES-Cadets "helping out" at mission base is common practice not withstanding.

And just which ES specialty do you think is required to drive during a mission?  What further training do you think is currently required by CAP regulation to do this?

Since no specific regulation says what you have to do to drive on a CAP mission, under your theory NO ONE can drive a vehicle on a CAP mission.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 30, 2008, 04:12:45 AM
And just which ES specialty do you think is required to drive during a mission? 

None, specifically per se, however proving a negative is rarely easy in CAP.  Show me where it authorized.
I can show you where all the "normal" specialties are trained and authorized, and I can't find a single one called "driver".

You have to be at least a trainee in whatever authorizes you in the field to start with, and have a CAP-DL.

For most cases that would be UDF-T, or GTM-T, because those are really the only ratings that train and authorize operations in the field.

Most else are base-ops positions that do not allow for independent field work.

Quote from: SJFedor on December 29, 2008, 11:46:13 PM

Quote from: Angus on December 29, 2008, 05:32:57 PM

Quote from: ThorntonOL on December 28, 2008, 09:25:47 PM
Only thing i'm missing is ICS 300 and 400 and I haven't finished my GT3 requirements yet, still need First aid and another mission number.

Do you have any Command Level Positions?   If you don't you don't have to take the 300 and 400.  Those are just for the top echilon.  IC, MSO, AL, etc.

300 is for anything above worker bee. So in our realm, our branch directors and up need at least 300, and 400 kicks in for the queen/king bees.

Since I'm up at that level as an MSO, I forget who needs 300 and who get's the recommended *wink *wink deal.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 30, 2008, 03:51:30 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on December 30, 2008, 03:32:19 AM
and there is a duty position called driver...the only qualifications are GES and a CAP Drivers License.

Cite please...

IMU2

Also....there is no need to be a "trainee" inorder to be at the mission base...just GES.  You must have completed the Fam&Pre-req training for certain jobs to act in that capacity.....for certain jobs.....but "driver" only requires GES as there is no ES qualifications.

As for sending people out to "the feild" with only GES as a driver?   Why not?  Say you got a ground team with an 18 year old SM as GTL and 2-3 GTM cadets.....who drives the van?  CAP REGS say you must be 21 to drive...so you assign them a driver and get the mission done.  That individual stays with the vechilce....it is a legitmate way of doing buisiness.

Also there are lots of jobs at the mission base that do not require any other speciltiy.  The sign in person.  The "door guard".  The food/errand runner.  GES is the basic "get in the door" ES qualification.  It allows you be at the mission base and help out with the grunt work that requires no other special qualifications.

Don't get these grunt work duties with MSA duties.  The MSA is NOT a goffer.  They have a very important job and should not be used/abused by other mission base staff.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 30, 2008, 03:59:09 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on December 30, 2008, 03:51:30 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on December 30, 2008, 03:32:19 AM
and there is a duty position called driver...the only qualifications are GES and a CAP Drivers License.

Cite please...

IMU2

Hardly a regulatory citation, if that's the only place you've seen it, then we agree there is no such thing as a "Driver" from a CAP ES perspective.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 30, 2008, 03:59:09 PM
As for sending people out to "the feild" with only GES as a driver?   Why not?  Say you got a ground team with an 18 year old SM as GTL and 2-3 GTM cadets.....who drives the van?  CAP REGS say you must be 21 to drive...so you assign them a driver and get the mission done.  That individual stays with the vehicle....it is a legitimate way of doing business.

The team doesn't go.

If you're sending a Ground Team, then there is a specific level of training and equipment required to be on that team.
Who accounts for the personal comfort and safety of this untrained, GES only "driver" if things go bad and the team has to stay in the field overnight?  Instant liability.

You're going to leave the driver all alone in the car while the rest of the team goes on the hunt?  What if something happens to him?  GES doesn't provide authorization touch a radio, either.

This is the same argument we get into all the time about Chaplains and CISM people who have no field qualifications.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 30, 2008, 03:59:09 PM
Also there are lots of jobs at the mission base that do not require any other specialty.  The sign in person.  The "door guard".  The food/errand runner.  GES is the basic "get in the door" ES qualification.  It allows you be at the mission base and help out with the grunt work that requires no other special qualifications.

Don't get these grunt work duties with MSA duties.  The MSA is NOT a goffer.  They have a very important job and should not be used/abused by other mission base staff.

Sorry, THE MSA rating was created specifically to allow less-trained and newer members who would normally not be allowed to play, to help after 911.  The door guards, escort and gofer jobs are specifically their purview.

GES gives you authorization to do nothing but start training in something else.

MSAs perform adminstrative roles at Mission Base (see task P-2006).   This can include escorting people, signing people in, posting information, etc.  There is nothing to preclude using them to drive people around if they have a CAP DL.

IAW CAPR 60-3 para 2-3a:  The General Emergency Services specialty rating is required of all individuals qualifying in emergency services and will be completed prior to commencing training for any other specialty. This training authorizes members to attend missions, observe activities and perform administrative and general operations support tasks under the direction of qualified staff personnel, essentially as a license to learn.

There is nothing to prevent a person with just a GES and CAP DL from transporting a ground team and then staying with the vehicle.  I would have to call that "operations support". 

Quote from: Short Field on December 30, 2008, 08:04:53 PM
MSAs perform adminstrative roles at Mission Base (see task P-2006).   This can include escorting people, signing people in, posting information, etc.  There is nothing to preclude using them to drive people around if they have a CAP DL.

IAW CAPR 60-3 para 2-3a:  The General Emergency Services specialty rating is required of all individuals qualifying in emergency services and will be completed prior to commencing training for any other specialty. This training authorizes members to attend missions, observe activities and perform administrative and general operations support tasks under the direction of qualified staff personnel, essentially as a license to learn.

There is nothing to prevent a person with just a GES and CAP DL from transporting a ground team and then staying with the vehicle.  I would have to call that "operations support". 

I agree.  You just have to ensure the member understands his/her role.

Its all about risk-tolerance, make all the edge arguments you want, but your teams should not be in the position that
they need GES-only members driving them around.

The perceived need is obviously a symptom of Senior-Member attitudes that Group ops (UDF & GT) are for "cadet" - I don't know where that come from, but up my way, the missions I go on are generally about 80+ percentage senior members, and they all have CAP DL's, so we're stuck in a position of hunting a driver.

Instead of putting the seniors you have at risk, you should be addressing why you don't have enough operationally qualified adult drivers.

Well you called it...

Risk-tolerance.  Given the level of risk...and the common sense approach to the possible risks....we need not use worst case scenarios all the time.

This is not a GTM=Cadet thing...but here in Nevada the majority of my GTMs are cadets.  This is about who can do what at a mission base.

There is such thing as a "driver".  Go drive this load of supplies to the airplane.  Go to the terminal and pick up the crew members.  Go drive this ground team to their drop off point and wait for them to return.  No need for GTM qualifications.....just GES and a driver's license.

If this is too much risk for you....then don't do it.....but don't tell me that I can't.....I got a mission to complete.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2008, 03:39:24 AM
Sparky - You're right that 300 & 400 are the hands-on training, however I disagree that we should bring this "in-house".

This is an opportunity for CAP to "take a lead."  If CAP members could conduct the training for the ES persons in their area, it could be a start to getting the name out and creating long lasting relationships.

CAP n

Quoteeeds to see the "agency agnostic model" that it gets today.  Bring it into CAP with no one from outside and we lose the outside opinions, the contacts, and the real-world of how CAP would integrate into large-scale ICS implementations.

I think we have plenty of "contrasting viewpoints" in CAP.  I believe in "protectionism" in CAP.  If we have to be beholden to others for our necessary training, then it that represents a serious flaw in out training. Basically a form of "unfunded" mandate," metaphorically a mandate with no attempt to offer the solutions for the mandates.

QuoteI suppose if its a matter of "do it in house or lose people", you have to "get 'r done", but I would not say that's the preferred method.

To me, the best method is the realistic one that works.  Waiting months and driving across the state for LE and FD personnel to conduct mandated courses is ridiculous.

QuoteI also find it hard to believe that in a state as large as Texas, with all the DHS activity you have with the borders, that there are so few training opportunities.  We're swimming in ICS up North, as long as you take the time to seek it out.

Texas, especially South Texas, is not Rhode Island where you can traverse the state by driving over three counties.   Houston is 4 hours from me, San Antonio is 3 hours, El Paso is 12 hours, Dallas is 8 hours.  Nearest "sister suqadron" is 2 hours away. Classes have limited slots, require unrealistically long drives and do nto occur often.  If I had a group of people in my squadron qualified to give the course, the problem would be solves.

Respectfully posted.

Well, its happened....the quals for everyone not in compliance with the ICS course requirements have been suspended.  My wing is mission incapable due to not having a single IC.  Lost about 40-50% from most ES quals.  More mission pilots than I had expected "survived". 

Looks like the system kicked out the ICs who hadn't completed 400 even though the federal compliance date isn't until September.  They might want to get that fixed quickly.

Quote from: RiverAux on January 01, 2009, 06:22:07 AM
Looks like the system kicked out the ICs who hadn't completed 400 even though the federal compliance date isn't until September.  They might want to get that fixed quickly.

Relax - I just got a note from the my Wing's ESO - the above is a system glitch they are working on (though probably not right at this minute).

Further checking...

The WMU appears to take no interest in the ICS issue.

eServices is showing the "**" as indicated for quals which require a missing ICS class.

I found a glitch with 101 cards online.

In spite of the fact I completed all the necessary ICS/NIMS courses, all my trainee indicators dropped from my 101 card.  I was a trainee for CUL, IO, MS, and UDF.  All are completely missing from the 101 card online.  The required ICS courses do show on the card, so it's not a failure to enter the classes into eServices.

The specialties I am qualified for survived just fine, even those requiring ICS/NIMS classes.

Fortunately all of my SQTRT entries are intact and I have my 101 card printed last month.   ;D

Check your 101 card in eServices and guard your old 101 card!

^^ I noticed that at 2 am today!  geez I am 1 task away from completing a qual and it drops off my card. 

So, it is new-years day.  I understand that there have been a few glitches in the system, but what is the NIMS impact on CAP's mission capability??

Well, if you consider loss of a significant portion of our qualified ES personnel an impact on our mission capability, I suppose it is there.  And, I'm not just talking about the temporary glitches. 

By the way, I'm just pointing out a fact that we have to live with -- I actually support the requirements and think CAP actually hasn't gone as far as it should have to be in full compliance with the federal requirements.

As we've discussed, the impact is probably most significant in areas where the ES programs are less-coherent to start.

By me, it looks like we probably lost 15%(ish) on paper (the last minute efforts by both members and staff were somewhat Herculean), but when you scan the list of those "lost", they are non-players who never respond.

Either they are too new to be an operational factor, or too disconnected. 

So ground level, the impact is negligible.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 01, 2009, 05:35:44 PM
As we've discussed, the impact is probably most significant in areas where the ES programs are less-coherent to start.

By me, it looks like we probably lost 15%(ish) on paper (the last minute efforts by both members and staff were somewhat Herculean), but when you scan the list of those "lost", they are non-players who never respond.

Either they are too new to be an operational factor, or too disconnected. 

So ground level, the impact is negligible.

Very astute observation.  There were three types of persons who did not respond: 

Those that could not, who were on business and discovered at the 11th hour that they needed 200 or 700.  They will comply as soon as they can.   Some did not have internet ability and will have to be addressed at the squadron.

Those that would not, these are the ones that stuck to the old "I've been in CAP for Nth many years and I will not do this."  These folks will have a change of heart once they show up to a SAR/SARex and find themselves DOWN and OUT.  They will either take the test then or quit.

Those that should not, these are the non-active that remain in CAP because they enjoy merely being part of it.  The one time hyper-active people who are on a "break" or other sort of thing that prevents activity.  Then there are those in CAP for more selfish reasons that were too bothered by this to do it.  These people likely should not be allowed to participate anyway due to lack of training.

These are, of course opinions, please do with them what you will.

Hehehe... Got the 700 course done at 9:34 PM Dec 31st.

Quote from: RiverAux on January 01, 2009, 06:22:07 AM
Looks like the system kicked out the ICs who hadn't completed 400 even though the federal compliance date isn't until September.  They might want to get that fixed quickly.

They seem to have gotten this fixed as my wing now has ICs again.  Quick work on the part of NHQ!

Those that could not, who were on business and discovered at the 11th hour that they needed 200 or 700.  They will comply as soon as they can.   Some did not have internet ability and will have to be addressed at the squadron.

This seems a little odd to me, as Nat sent the directive out in May, 2008.  If there squadron ES folks have not talked about this, SHAME ON THEM.  I don't believe that anyone other then maybe a newbie has an excuse.

So I haven't been able to go get my IS-300 done.  All it did was put two little asterisks in front of my GBD rating.  I knew I should have laid off the steroids.....

Those ** mean that you are not authorized to serve in that position any longer, not even as a trainee (since it looks like they included the ICS requirements as part of the fam and prep training you need to do before going into the field as a trainee). 

I think that my squadron lost mainly trainees that joined in december so I'll have to check on that.
EDIT: Apparently I am a casualty as I have lost CUL trainee status as I need the 300 and 800 courses and didn't even know it! Ah well I'm still GT qualified and I will begin work for 300 and 800.

Quote from: SARADDICT on January 01, 2009, 10:24:35 PM
I think that my squadron lost mainly trainees that joined in december so I'll have to check on that.
EDIT: Apparently I am a casualty as I have lost CUL trainee status as I need the 300 and 800 courses and didn't even know it! Ah well I'm still GT qualified and I will begin work for 300 and 800.

OK, I'm just asking...How could you not know it?

that answer is very simple and makes me feel rather unresponsible: I simply have not been looking at my CUL SQTR.
I have a question though: I am taking IS-800 now and was wondering, would we be considered by FEMA a voluntary resource or a goverment resource?

The Policy Letter from 10 April said "Most members will need to complete a few on line courses by 31 December 2008 in order to remain qualified"  I interpreted that to mean that since members in training status are not "qualified" they could still remain in a trainee status until the courses were taken.  I'm not sure this was completely understood by the membership.

I have taken NIMS courses 100,200,300,700 and 800.  I found 300 to be moderately helpful.  Other then this being PR for CAP to tell FEMA that we require these course to be taken, I fail to see the real benefit in 99% of our missions.

The ONLY time the courses other than 100 will come into play for most of the members other than ICS staff is on Federal disaster missions.  Even then, CAP will most likely be a mission within the mission with the CAP folks reporting up though an all CAP ICS.  Additionally, this will wipe out a lot of cadet participation.

IMHO, CAP has really shot themselves in the foot with this for AFRCC missions, which are our primary reason for being.

Quote from: ELTHunter on January 02, 2009, 12:31:40 AM
I have taken NIMS courses 100,200,300,700 and 800.  I found 300 to be moderately helpful.  Other then this being PR for CAP to tell FEMA that we require these course to be taken, I fail to see the real benefit in 99% of our missions.

The ONLY time the courses other than 100 will come into play for most of the members other than ICS staff is on Federal disaster missions.  Even then, CAP will most likely be a mission within the mission with the CAP folks reporting up though an all CAP ICS.  Additionally, this will wipe out a lot of cadet participation.

IMHO, CAP has really shot themselves in the foot with this for AFRCC missions, which are our primary reason for being.

As a federalized agency, even part-time, it wasn't an option, we had to do it, just like every LEA and municipality that gets, or hopes to reach for, HLS, FEMA, or other gov'mint cheese.

As to needing it - the mentality and organization that ICS brings can be used for anything, it doesn't have to be a huge
disaster.  Airshows, encampments, even most larger general events could benefit from the consistency and scalability ICS brings to the table.

I agree that from the bunch listed, 300 had the most value, but then to those of use who took it, the rest is pretty redundant.

Quote from: ELTHunter on January 02, 2009, 12:31:40 AM
The Policy Letter from 10 April said "Most members will need to complete a few on line courses by 31 December 2008 in order to remain qualified"  I interpreted that to mean that since members in training status are not "qualified" they could still remain in a trainee status until the courses were taken.  I'm not sure this was completely understood by the membership.

I agree that the policy letter was not clear about which part of the SQTR the NIMS requirements would go in and should have clarified that for the benefit of those in trainee status.  That being said, anyone in trainee status should have realized that it would behoove them to take the appropriate ICS course anyway otherwise they would never have become qualified. 

QuoteIMHO, CAP has really shot themselves in the foot with this for AFRCC missions, which are our primary reason for being.

Huh?  How did we shoot ourselves in the foot by deciding to get in compliance (actually almost in compliance) with the national standards that every other SAR and DR agency is going to have to follow? 

Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2009, 12:38:19 AM
As a federalized agency, even part-time, it wasn't an option, we had to do it, just like every LEA and municipality that gets, or hopes to reach for, HLS, FEMA, or other gov'mint cheese.

I'll admit up front that I do not know where, if any, CAP funding comes from that doesn't come from the USAF.  Does CAP receive any FEMA $$?  As I understand it, the requirement was that in order to receive FEMA $$ or work a FEMA mission, the organizations had to be NIMS compliant.

Is the USAF, National Guard or Reserves compliant?

Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2009, 12:38:19 AM
As to needing it - the mentality and organization that ICS brings can be used for anything, it doesn't have to be a huge
disaster.  Airshows, encampments, even most larger general events could benefit from the consistency and scalability ICS brings to the table.

I don't disagree that there isn't a benefit to using ICS in a lot of the things we do, including the ones you cite....I have seen many events that could have used the structure that ICS provides in order to run more smoothly.  However, I am saying that most ground team members, MO's, MS's, people out in the field, only care about who their immediate supervisor is.  They really don't care or need to know all the various ICS positions, who's a chief, who's a director, etc., etc.  Especially Cadets....who, from the way things are going, won't be able to work FEMA missions any way.

Obviously I support the edict enough to have invested the time in taking the classes, and I plan to take 400 even though it is only "recommended" for my level of qualification.  I'm just saying that I think we have cut a resource that was really too thin in the first place to back up the salesmanship for any extended length of time.

This is just one of those things that is entirely out of CAP's hands, so there isn't much use complaining about it.  Sure, a GT member may not need to know some of that stuff, but the fact is that DHS wants people at that level to know it, so we've got to do it. 

Does CAP get money from FEMA?  Not regular grants or anything, but we do missions for them all the time for which we are reimbursed. 

Regarding military compliance -- there are some exceptions that they can fall under in regards to the presidential directives that started all this so the issue is a bit murkier with them and also irrelevant to us. 

Quote from: ELTHunter on January 02, 2009, 01:04:30 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2009, 12:38:19 AM
As a federalized agency, even part-time, it wasn't an option, we had to do it, just like every LEA and municipality that gets, or hopes to reach for, HLS, FEMA, or other gov'mint cheese.

I'll admit up front that I do not know where, if any, CAP funding comes from that doesn't come from the USAF.  Does CAP receive any FEMA $$?  As I understand it, the requirement was that in order to receive FEMA $$ or work a FEMA mission, the organizations had to be NIMS compliant.

Is the USAF, National Guard or Reserves compliant?

Quote from: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Incident_Management_System
The 2003 presidential directive required all federal agencies to adopt the NIMS and to use it in their individual domestic incident management and emergency prevention, preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation programs and activities. The directive also required Federal departments to make adoption of NIMS by State, tribal, and local organizations a condition for Federal preparedness assistance beginning in Fiscal Year 2005. In addition, all State, tribal, and local emergency personnel with a direct role in emergency preparedness, incident management or response were to have completed NIMS training by October 1, 2005. After the directive was adopted, all State, tribal and local personnel with any role in emergency response were given until October 1, 2006 to complete training for NIMS compliance.

You will note that we, along with most of the rest of the known ES universe, are well behind the original requirement.

Working with FEMA, etc., is actually irrelevant to the requirement.  We're an instrumentality of a federal agency, therefore required to comply.

However some of this becomes a little circular - since NIMS requires state agencies and direct responders to be compliant, we get it on the corporate side as well, since the majority of what we do outside AFRCC falls under state or local MOUs, etc.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2009, 01:16:37 AM

Quote from: ELTHunter on January 02, 2009, 01:04:30 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2009, 12:38:19 AM
As a federalized agency, even part-time, it wasn't an option, we had to do it, just like every LEA and municipality that gets, or hopes to reach for, HLS, FEMA, or other gov'mint cheese.

I'll admit up front that I do not know where, if any, CAP funding comes from that doesn't come from the USAF.  Does CAP receive any FEMA $$?  As I understand it, the requirement was that in order to receive FEMA $$ or work a FEMA mission, the organizations had to be NIMS compliant.

Is the USAF, National Guard or Reserves compliant?

Quote from: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Incident_Management_System
The 2003 presidential directive required all federal agencies to adopt the NIMS and to use it in their individual domestic incident management and emergency prevention, preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation programs and activities. The directive also required Federal departments to make adoption of NIMS by State, tribal, and local organizations a condition for Federal preparedness assistance beginning in Fiscal Year 2005. In addition, all State, tribal, and local emergency personnel with a direct role in emergency preparedness, incident management or response were to have completed NIMS training by October 1, 2005. After the directive was adopted, all State, tribal and local personnel with any role in emergency response were given until October 1, 2006 to complete training for NIMS compliance.

You will note that we, along with most of the rest of the known ES universe, are well behind the original requirement.

Working with FEMA, etc., is actually irrelevant to the requirement.  We're an instrumentality of a federal agency, therefore required to comply.

However some of this becomes a little circular - since NIMS requires state agencies and direct responders to be compliant, we get it on the corporate side as well, since the majority of what we do outside AFRCC falls under state or local MOUs, etc.

I know I'm beating the crap out of this dead horse, and this wasn't the topic of this particular thread, but I'd still argue that CAP members should be able to participate in AFRCC missions as the USAF Aux (not a federal agency like FEMA), just like the Guard and Reserve do, and not subject some of the membership to having to wade through this.  Most Cadets who could otherwise come out and train as Ground Team Member 3's will not complete the courses and thus won't even be able to train on practice missions.  Another blow to the cadet program if that happens.

Quote from: ELTHunter on January 02, 2009, 01:44:31 AMMost Cadets who could otherwise come out and train as Ground Team Member 3's will not complete the courses and thus won't even be able to train on practice missions.  Another blow to the cadet program if that happens.

I received an email last week from a cadet who's been a member all of six weeks. It contained PDF copies of certificates for his GES and NIMS tests, and he wanted to know if there was anything else he need to do. It was no big deal to him, just something that he knew he was expected to complete.

Now if only the adults could be as responsible as a 13 year old...

The only new requirement for GTM3 is IC 700.  IC 100 simply replaced CAPT 116 pt 2.   IC 700 can be completed in under an hour so it should not be a big deal.  

Someone just confirm my sanity here...

The ICS courses are validated only at the unit level, correct? As in, they do not need to go racing up through Group and Wing like SQTR quals.

Correct?

Quote from: Eclipse on January 01, 2009, 10:32:47 PM

Quote from: SARADDICT on January 01, 2009, 10:24:35 PM
I think that my squadron lost mainly trainees that joined in december so I'll have to check on that.
EDIT: Apparently I am a casualty as I have lost CUL trainee status as I need the 300 and 800 courses and didn't even know it! Ah well I'm still GT qualified and I will begin work for 300 and 800.

OK, I'm just asking...How could you not know it?

Quote from: Eclipse on January 01, 2009, 10:32:47 PM

Quote from: SARADDICT on January 01, 2009, 10:24:35 PM
I think that my squadron lost mainly trainees that joined in december so I'll have to check on that.
EDIT: Apparently I am a casualty as I have lost CUL trainee status as I need the 300 and 800 courses and didn't even know it! Ah well I'm still GT qualified and I will begin work for 300 and 800.

OK, I'm just asking...How could you not know it?

The answer, my well connected friend, is that we are not in a miltary setting were morning briefings are even possible.  Some units, like ours, meet weekly...some meet once a month and at SARex/SAR.

The largest obstical is getting this information out to everyone. 

Most of our people didn't know what they needed until our WING sent out a chart showing it a month before the deadline. 

It goes back to my point that not all CAP persons are CAPTALK threadsters ad thus are not privy to the rumors and POCA (previews of coming attractions).  I was discussing NIMS with DNALL here well over a year ago, most people in my unit (even federal employees) didn't know much about it then.

I will say this, I get a heads-up on 90% of stuff here...because some have said I am the "busy body" sort.  I do it, in actuality, to be able to keep my unit up on things.  Because of that the "Countdown to Armageddon" for our unit was not  so bad.  Only a few folks will be affected and they will be schooled later.

The problem is in the ability of information to flow down the chain to everyone.

Quote from: ELTHunter on January 02, 2009, 01:44:31 AMMost Cadets who could otherwise come out and train as Ground Team Member 3's will not complete the courses and thus won't even be able to train on practice missions.  Another blow to the cadet program if that happens.

Cite, please.

If you have cadets who will spend the money on the gear, but can't be bothered to take a 15 minute online, open book test, they aren't much of an asset.

Quote from: Major Carrales on January 02, 2009, 02:11:58 AM
The answer, my well connected friend, is that we are not in a military setting were morning briefings are even possible.  Some units, like ours, meet weekly...some meet once a month and at SARex/SAR.

I'm not buying that - this has been the topic of conversation, email notices, Wing warnings, NHQ warnings, and other traffic since the summer, and heavy since the late fall.

And in this case, SARADDICT is a member of the CT community, so it doesn't fly anyway.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2009, 03:22:38 AM

Quote from: Major Carrales on January 02, 2009, 02:11:58 AM
The answer, my well connected friend, is that we are not in a military setting were morning briefings are even possible.  Some units, like ours, meet weekly...some meet once a month and at SARex/SAR.

I'm not buying that - this has been the topic of conversation, email notices, Wing warnings, NHQ warnings, and other traffic since the summer, and heavy since the late fall.

And in this case, SARADDICT is a member of the CT community, so it doesn't fly anyway.

You are assuming all things are equal...some units are not as savvy as you would think.  There are lots of places where "old school" CAP is still very much running.  In fact, in November 2006, after I have been in command only one month...I had a fellow who was chastizing me for using the COMPUTER too much.  He claimed I was "destroying" the unit by asking everyone to enter their data into MIMS for approval.

He also rejected some copies of the Uniform manual because it was not a "typed" one and thought I had used computer "trickery" to generate a false page to show why Majors wore "clouds and darts" and CAP Officers used "US" lapel insignia instead of "CAP."

I am sure there are a few places across the nation that are "left behind" somehow still operating because someone is "turning the other cheek."

As for SARADDICT, this person has little excuse if this person is on CAPTALK.  It has been well discussed.

Quote from: Major Carrales on January 02, 2009, 03:36:51 AM
You are assuming all things are equal...some units are not as savvy as you would think.  There are lots of places where "old school" CAP is still very much running.  In fact, in November 2006, after I have been in command only one month...I had a fellow who was chastising me for using the COMPUTER too much.  He claimed I was "destroying" the unit by asking everyone to enter their data into MIMS for approval.

He also rejected some copies of the Uniform manual because it was not a "typed" one and thought I had used computer "trickery" to generate a false page to show why Majors wore "clouds and darts" and CAP Officers used "US" lapel insignia instead of "CAP."

It would be funny if it wasn't true, I ran into the same, though not as extreme.  From the late 90's through the early 00's, the transition was painful, but still accommodated the late comers.  Today, however, you simply can't be a productive member of CAP (or soon society), without computer access.  It is what it is.  I know that people complained in the same way about the haves / have-nots of the radio nets, and those CC's who hoarded the hard-copy regs away from the rank and file.

Information is power and there's always an underclass, though I think its less now since the whole shooting match is online.

Quote from: Major Carrales on January 02, 2009, 03:36:51 AM
I am sure there are a few places across the nation that are "left behind" somehow still operating because someone is "turning the other cheek."

Sadly, we all know you're right, although if they are that disconnected, they probably won't notice and it'll be status quo for months, if not longer...

Correct.  There is no "approval" process.  You just need someone with validation permissions in eServices who saw the certificate.

QuoteThe answer, my well connected friend, is that we are not in a miltary setting were morning briefings are even possible.  Some units, like ours, meet weekly...some meet once a month and at SARex/SAR.

The largest obstical is getting this information out to everyone.  

Most of our people didn't know what they needed until our WING sent out a chart showing it a month before the deadline.  

A perennial problem for a lot of CAP-wide announcements, but its not like this was a short-notice change.  8 months was quite long enough and if your Wing failed to pass the word, shame on them, but also shame on you for apparently not bugging your wing to make the announcement sooner, because you knew about it well before this past month.  I have been the instigator of such nudges to my superiors when I thought they weren't moving fast enough to get the word out about something.  

Are there entire squadrons out there that are completely offline?  It's hard to accept there wasn't a least one person in each unit that knew about the required courses and could have shared the information.

It's understandable that some members don't have computers at home, but there is usually access available through a public library, work, school, or some other shared resource.  (I know there will be a few exceptions.)  I just have to believe that most members with a desire could have completed the online NIMS/ICS courses if they knew about them.  The classroom courses are another story.

Of course there will be members who resist because they just don't want to play along.  Unfortunately they are hurting themselves along with the rest of us.  Some of our funding is distributed based on ES qualifications.  As a bunch of those qualifications drop off, there may be less money to pay for the things even the most resistant members enjoy.

Found out yesterday that INWG has 31 GTMs currently. Of those 17 are GTLs. A lot of CCs screwed the pooch there. In my unit I was the last one to come into full compliance and that was new years eve. My unit is now 100% ICS. I sure hope an airplane does not go down in the next few weeks otherwise Eclipse will be riding to our rescue  ;D

Quote from: davidsinn on January 02, 2009, 03:34:14 PMA lot of CCs screwed the pooch there.

What ever happened to personal responsibility? There might be a few members who weren't aware of the deadline, but it wasn't exactly a secret.

Quote from: EMT-83 on January 02, 2009, 04:14:32 PM

Quote from: davidsinn on January 02, 2009, 03:34:14 PMA lot of CCs screwed the pooch there.

What ever happened to personal responsibility? There might be a few members who weren't aware of the deadline, but it wasn't exactly a secret.

You have a point there but in the end it's the Commander's responsibility to ensure mission success.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2009, 03:17:12 AM

Quote from: ELTHunter on January 02, 2009, 01:44:31 AMMost Cadets who could otherwise come out and train as Ground Team Member 3's will not complete the courses and thus won't even be able to train on practice missions.  Another blow to the cadet program if that happens.

Cite, please.

If you have cadets who will spend the money on the gear, but can't be bothered to take a 15 minute on line, open book test, they aren't much of an asset.

How much experience have you had working directly with Cadets?  I can't site you specific instances, I can only say that I have had many.....probably most cadets.....over the past 10 years...that would perpetually be in a training status because they would not take the time to go into MIMS or Ops Quals or whatever the name of the day was and enter their own information into the SQTR.

I am not talking about cadets that didn't have a clue what to do in the field, I'm talking about cadets that were vary capable of performing well as GTM3's and GTM2's in the field but just couldn't manage to write down mission numbers and get the information into the database.

I don't pretend to understand the teenage mind.  They can spend countless hours playing internet games or text messaging, but can't seem to find 15 minutes to enter their information.

There is no excuse for Commanders being unaware of the ICS requirements.   It boggles the mind that they never log on to eServices to handle personnel issues and check out the Commander's Dashboard or got any type of information from the Wing/CC.  Too hard to believe.

The Commander's responsibility is to make sure the members know the requirements and to provide training opportunities (if able).  However, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.  There are a lot of members who refused to drink.  

Our wing' just lost over 50% of our ICs.  Not that big a loss as only two or three were people you would call anyway and they have been trying to get IC 300 for months.  

Some of us have been standing on the tables shouting about this change for over a year, but it seems like no one has been listening.  You can't drag people by the scruff of the neck over to the computer and make them do it no matter how much you would like to.  Maybe the point will be driven home next time they drive halfway across the state for a SAREX and then get sent home for not having completed thier ICS requirements.

Quote from: Al Sayre on January 02, 2009, 05:52:48 PM
Some of us have been standing on the tables shouting about this change for over a year, but it seems like no one has been listening.  You can't drag people by the scruff of the neck over to the computer and make them do it no matter how much you would like to.  Maybe the point will be driven home next time they drive halfway across the state for a SAREX and then get sent home for not having completed thier ICS requirements.

Solution: Make the ICS basic cycle part of the overall CAP system.  Want to fly a CAP Aircraft?...well, step up to the plate for a helping of IS 100,200, 700 and 800.   Want to work with Cadets...be a cadet NCO? Well, have a helping of IS 200 and 700. 

I am reminded of Thomas Paine's comments in Commonsense about "the birthday of a new world" and starting over again.  We should view this a "begin point," not Armageddon.

Why mandate this?  Ideally all CAP pilots should have some ES capability.  If not, what is the reason they are here?  Most cadets are very interested (at least in my area) in ES, especially when they realize it is a "REAL" thing.  Why not introduce them to ICS, maybe they can explain it to thier parents during Hurricane evacuations.

Quote from: Major Carrales on January 02, 2009, 06:12:42 PM
Solution: Make the ICS basic cycle part of the overall CAP system.  Want to fly a CAP Aircraft?...well, step up to the plate for a helping of IS 100,200, 700 and 800.   Want to work with Cadets...be a cadet NCO? Well, have a helping of IS 200 and 700. 

They did just that with the 10 April 2008 ICL.  In you play in the ES sandbox, you will have ICS training.

Quote from: Major Carrales on January 02, 2009, 06:12:42 PM
Why mandate this?  Ideally all CAP pilots should have some ES capability.  If not, what is the reason they are here?  Most cadets are very interested (at least in my area) in ES, especially when they realize it is a "REAL" thing.  Why not introduce them to ICS, maybe they can explain it to thier parents during Hurricane evacuations.

I agree 100% - this idea of "we don't do ES" (or any one of the three missions) is incredibly counterproductive to CAP as a whole, but pushing it on pilots who just want to burn cheap holes in the sky will be an uphill battle - ditto with the harried Unit CC's in the "flyover states" who are barely keeping their head above water as-is.

In our cadet program we should be building good citizens, not "cadets", "drill gods", "rocketry teams", or "encampment lifers", and in todays reality, responding to community disasters is a part of that (as, of course, are the other pieces in quotes as well).

As to the seniors, they should be responding as needed.

I have never understood what value a pilot believes he's bringing to the table if he's not involved with cadets and not doing ES.

Quote from: davidsinn on January 02, 2009, 03:34:14 PM
Found out yesterday that INWG has 31 GTMs currently. Of those 17 are GTLs. A lot of CCs screwed the pooch there. In my unit I was the last one to come into full compliance and that was new years eve. My unit is now 100% ICS. I sure hope an airplane does not go down in the next few weeks otherwise Eclipse will be riding to our rescue  ;D

Wow 31 GTMs and 17 GTLs? that's about 4-5 ground teams with some GTLs left over..... I really hope the wing gets more people in compliance and fast.

It looks like the changes are being reflected in the homeland security resources listing report https://ntc.cap.af.mil/ops/hls/resources.cfm

On a national leve we now only have 1265 pilots, which isn't even 3 mission pilots per plane. 

In looking at the regional level reports, there are quite a few states in big trouble.  About the worst seems to be Alabama, Louisiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Michigan, Hawaii, Washington, Vermont which are at 1 mission pilot per aircraft (4 of which have less than 1 pilot/aircraft). 

Alaska has NO mission pilots.

As might be expected, the Wings with the most personnel have done the best  since they probably had the highest ratios of pilots to aircraft before the change anyway, but even they aren't at great levels. 

As I've said before, we'll probably eventually get back to about 80-90% of our pre-NIMS numbers, but those who think that we aren't in a serious short-term crisis are kidding themselves. 

Quote from: RiverAux on January 03, 2009, 01:37:45 AM

In looking at the regional level reports, there are quite a few states in big trouble.  About the worst seems to be Alabama, Louisiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Michigan, Hawaii, Washington, Vermont which are at 1 mission pilot per aircraft (4 of which have less than 1 pilot/aircraft). 

Alaska has NO mission pilots.

Good grief.  Where's the leadership?  This should have been a briefing item to the national commander ONCE A WEEK and region commanders should have been monitoring what the wings were doing to keep this from happening.  Sure, members are going to do what they want, but there's a solid core of pilots, observers, scanners, GTMs, etc that get things done no matter what.  Having a wing that's entirely on its butt (Alaska) is intolerable, especially when they have multiple missions per day from time to time.

Some of these colonels and generals need to be called to account.

Gunner

Quote from: Gunner C on January 03, 2009, 01:28:43 PM
Good grief.  Where's the leadership?  This should have been a briefing item to the national commander ONCE A WEEK and region commanders should have been monitoring what the wings were doing to keep this from happening. 

+1000

Where I work... towards the end of the year, a task that I normally do monthly, I started to do weekly.  This was to ensure that we were going to hit our target numbers.  it got to the point that I was calling people individually, to see what the hours/ dollars were going to be for a particular day.

For CAP not to demand something of this on a wing/ group borders on insanity.  Yes we are a volunteer organization, but in some cases we need to know who the chaff is.
Alaska really has ZERO mission pilots?  OMG!  Heads should roll if this is true.  I really hope that the reporting mechanism is wrong in this case.

Unfortunately, they didn't release the online reports that let commanders track compliance with the new regulations until sometime in November, which by then was almost too late to do anything about it.  That report should have been available at the same time they put the ICL into effect and it should have been a priority item as Gunner suggested.  Too late to cry over spilt milk though. 

Quote from: RiverAux on January 03, 2009, 07:07:37 PM
Too late to cry over spilt milk though. 

No, crying over spilled milk reminds us not to let it spill again.

I can tell you know that there was no "ready reference" that allowed me as a commander to know exactally who needed what ICS courses to remain current.  In fact, it take over an hour just for me to toggle back and forth between screens, names and modules just to check if people's quals are being approved at higher headquarters (please, let me know if there is a report in E-services that could show me that...I am yet to find it).

Yes, in about November our Wing Commander put out a NIMS report that showed what people in certain ES tracks needed.  This helped me greatly in that I could look at the "ALL OPS QUAL" feature and manually determine who needed to be reminded to take a certain ICS course.  We were able to save about 90% of the unit, the rest will be working on compliance now.

Maybe the idea was to scale back our personnel, at least for a while.  To solidify the core (corps) of active CAP Officers and Cadets and build from there.  Such attrition is almost one in likeness to the ancient Spartans.  I can't say that was the plan, but it might have that effect in hindsight.

I can't, however, say that I am impressed with ICS200, 700 and 800.  They seem to repeat the same stuff ad infinitum.   Maybe, as we train at SARex activities, we should stress the ICS part in blatant form along with the CAP side? 

After all, most downed pilots, hurricane victims and lost children's first question when they are rescued is "What is span of control/unity of command?" ;)

You may need some higher level approval to get to these, but go in the Reports section and there are two NIMS reports.  One labeled something like NIMS statistics which gives the statistical breakdown of how many people had courses by ES position.  That was very helpful before 12/31, but now all the non-complianct people aren't considered in it.

The one you want is Missing NIMS Training which breaks it down by person. 

As soon as they started allowing you to enter the ICS courses as a separate acheivement (May or Jun timeframe??), you could track your units progress.  All you needed to do was run a report asking for specific Ops Achievements - as in who has completed ICS 700?  I was tracking the Wing's completion rate since at least June.

You really need to make sure you are given permissions to run all the restricted report functions in eServices if you are in a leadership or senior management position.  If you are only on the Squadron staff, your permissions would be limited to squadron so it is not a big deal.  There are a lot of tools in eServices that make managing a unit a lot easier.

Quote from: Major Carrales on January 03, 2009, 07:24:50 PM
After all, most downed pilots, hurricane victims and lost children's first question when they are rescued is "What is span of control/unity of command?"

Without ICS working, the odds of ever finding them are significantly decreased.

MIWG is down to 15 mission pilots. We used to have about 50.

Case in point though... Alaska. According to someone here, E-services shows they have no Mission Pilots. Are we sure they haven't flown any missions since midnight of the 31st?

It's like Pennsylvania and it's safety issue a few months back, except I can't see a Washington Wing A/C flying a mission to cover Alaska.

If something major happened I'm sure they would man the planes. Either that or have the USAF cover it out of Elmendorf.

^^Or have the MP take 30 mins and complete IS 700.  If they haven't done IS 200, that will take another 40 mins.

We are running a SAR mission in MS & AL starting 01/03/09.  I don't know about AL, but I have spent a lot of time calling MS people who were de-certified to get them to do the IS700 and get re-certified so we can prosecute this mission.  It's been a giant pain.  Mr. Murphy and I saw this coming from a long way off, but nobody wanted to listen.  Now half the wing has been up till 0300 doing ICS courses for the last 2 nights...

And how many people did you hear pontificate on how the training was worthless, too hard to do, and that National would never hold our feet to the fire and actually make us meet the arbitrary deadlines they set???

Heard a lot of it, mostly from the folks who haven't done the training.  Many of those same folks have changed their tunes about the ICS 300 & 400 training since they actually took it.  But it really doesn't matter what you think of the training, the simple fact is no completion = no participation.  So spread the word to get the courses done!

I just noticed that the WMU now has fields for ICS-requirements in the various SQTRS, listed at the top of the FAM/Prep section and taking data from MIMS.

Quote from: RiverAux on January 03, 2009, 07:30:14 PM
You may need some higher level approval to get to these, but go in the Reports section and there are two NIMS reports.  One labeled something like NIMS statistics which gives the statistical breakdown of how many people had courses by ES position.  That was very helpful before 12/31, but now all the non-complianct people aren't considered in it.

The one you want is Missing NIMS Training which breaks it down by person. 

Are you sure they're not considered in it?  I ran one and it looks like they still are.  I know when I go to look at their 101 card nothing shows up now.

The report by individuals includes everyone with any ES Quals.  The statistics report seems to just include people that are current, and since 12/31 only people that are compliant with the NIMS regs are current, so the stats page is useuless.  UNLESS they changed something today. 

Quote from: Short Field on January 04, 2009, 02:48:26 AM
^^Or have the MP take 30 mins and complete IS 700.  If they haven't done IS 200, that will take another 40 mins.

Wonder why FEMA estimates 180 minutes to complete each course?  Although, it did take me a couple of hours for each course. 

Quote from: Ricochet13 on January 05, 2009, 11:50:07 PM

Quote from: Short Field on January 04, 2009, 02:48:26 AM
^^Or have the MP take 30 mins and complete IS 700.  If they haven't done IS 200, that will take another 40 mins.

Wonder why FEMA estimates 180 minutes to complete each course?  Although, it did take me a couple of hours for each course. 

The test itself took me 15 minutes.

If you sat done pretty cold to ICS, flipped through every slide, went back and forth, and looked things up along the way I could see several hours.

I believe there are also cases where if you are taking the class for work, and want credit, you actually have to sit through the whole, timed, root canal curriculum.

Hell I cheated it only took me 5 minutes!

Quote from: Ricochet13 on January 05, 2009, 11:50:07 PM

Quote from: Short Field on January 04, 2009, 02:48:26 AM
^^Or have the MP take 30 mins and complete IS 700.  If they haven't done IS 200, that will take another 40 mins.

Wonder why FEMA estimates 180 minutes to complete each course?  Although, it did take me a couple of hours for each course. 

As the Wing/DO once told a young Lt many years ago in the RM, "You just have to remember, if they were as good as us, we would just be average".   ;D

Quote from: Nomex Maximus on January 04, 2009, 01:28:34 AM
MIWG is down to 15 mission pilots. We used to have about 50.

I feel sorry for you NM, I have 33 in my Group alone.

Rumor has it that the current ** is a temporary suspense due to incomplete ICS courses.  However, on 1 Feb, NHQ will complete remove the ** quals and you have to start over from the begining.  My source is in a position to knonw and it was in writing.   Has anyone else seen anything about this?   

Quote from: Short Field on January 07, 2009, 08:31:28 AM
Rumor has it that the current ** is a temporary suspense due to incomplete ICS courses.  However, on 1 Feb, NHQ will complete remove the ** quals and you have to start over from the beginning.  My source is in a position to knonw and it was in writing.   Has anyone else seen anything about this?   

Complete, utter, nonsense.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2009, 07:50:18 PM

Quote from: Major Carrales on January 03, 2009, 07:24:50 PM
After all, most downed pilots, hurricane victims and lost children's first question when they are rescued is "What is span of control/unity of command?"

Without ICS working, the odds of ever finding them are significantly decreased.

You are correct, ICS is critical for the organization to function. That being said, do mission pilots and scanners really need to know the difference between a task force and a strike team to fly a successful sortie, most likely not. Knowing who to report to and how the system works is good, don't get me wrong but if I am not mistaken, we have found a few folks before this month without the courses.

Most of the courses have been designed to train paid organizations that have no issue sending folks to a three day course during the week. I can't believe that all of the courses could not be boiled down to get the critical data out without taking half of your vacation days to get them done. Just read the previous posts and see how many members just pencil whipped the courses anyway. I'll bet if I handed out a test 90% would get half of everything after their name wrong. That's not education, that just checking off the boxes so they leave us alone until the next mandate comes down.

Some of my mission management stuff will lapse because I can't devote the time to sit through the ICS 300. I am sure that will be the case for many full time folks with three kids and a tank of fish at home to take care of.

I know that it is very difficult but CAP needs to be more aware of the time limits that most of it's volunteers have to committ on a regular basis. If the crap hits the fan I have no problem taking whatever time off I need to help but there is a limit to how much training I can go to and keep myself out of divorce court.

Just keeping it real.........

Quote from: Auxpilot on January 07, 2009, 06:51:39 PM
Some of my mission management stuff will lapse because I can't devote the time to sit through the ICS 300. I am sure that will be the case for many full time folks with three kids and a tank of fish at home to take care of.

I know that it is very difficult but CAP needs to be more aware of the time limits that most of it's volunteers have to commit on a regular basis. If the crap hits the fan I have no problem taking whatever time off I need to help but there is a limit to how much training I can go to and keep myself out of divorce court.

You raise a legitimate concern, and the need for in-house training for people who can't get to week-day class is real, however with that said, a lot of wings have found weekend classes to fill the need.

Most of the members I know who have taken the effort to rise to Branch Director or higher are hyper-involved anyway, and if its not an ICS class, its probably RSC, NESA, or something else killing their vacation time.

The aircrew and ground assets, however, don't need 300 anyway, and if they can't be bothered to take a 15 minute online test, well, obviously we shouldn't bother them for missions, either.

What you think of the material, the system or those who imposed it is immaterial.  It all boils down to the Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."   The Federal Gov't has said "If you are going to be on a mission that we are paying for, you must have these courses."  They pay for us to perform our missions and  they provide our aircraft, vehicles and communications equipment.  So you have two choices, do the courses or don't participate.   

Quote from: Eclipse on January 07, 2009, 07:06:03 PM

Quote from: Auxpilot on January 07, 2009, 06:51:39 PM
Some of my mission management stuff will lapse because I can't devote the time to sit through the ICS 300. I am sure that will be the case for many full time folks with three kids and a tank of fish at home to take care of.

I know that it is very difficult but CAP needs to be more aware of the time limits that most of it's volunteers have to commit on a regular basis. If the crap hits the fan I have no problem taking whatever time off I need to help but there is a limit to how much training I can go to and keep myself out of divorce court.

You raise a legitimate concern, and the need for in-house training for people who can't get to week-day class is real, however with that said, a lot of wings have found weekend classes to fill the need.

Most of the members I know who have taken the effort to rise to Branch Director or higher are hyper-involved anyway, and if its not an ICS class, its probably RSC, NESA, or something else killing their vacation time.

The aircrew and ground assets, however, don't need 300 anyway, and if they can't be bothered to take a 15 minute online test, well, obviously we shouldn't bother them for missions, either.

Your correct in everything you say however there is a tipping point at which even those of us that are hyper involved have to say uncle.

Mission Pilots are required to take 100, 200 and 700. If that takes anyone 15 minutes, they didn't learn a thing.

I'm as gung ho as the next guy but not willing to write off members that have given 10 years of their lives flying sorties as quickly as you seem to be.

Maybe we need to put an asterik next to any qualification that does not have the appropriate ICS course completed that says "Not allowed to run with the big dogs" They can still however help out when one of those very infrequent, middle of the night, nobody wants to get out of bed, single aircrew without a Finance Section Chief, false alarm ELT calls come in. ;D

Quote from: Al Sayre on January 07, 2009, 07:16:45 PM
What you think of the material, the system or those who imposed it is immaterial.  It all boils down to the Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."   The Federal Gov't has said "If you are going to be on a mission that we are paying for, you must have these courses."  They pay for us to perform our missions and  they provide our aircraft, vehicles and communications equipment.  So you have two choices, do the courses or don't participate.   

Sorry, lost my head there for a minute. I forgot who signs my checks.

I pick door #3 - work to make the organization more professional without driving out most of it's members.

Quote from: Auxpilot on January 07, 2009, 07:29:17 PM
Mission Pilots are required to take 100, 200 and 700. If that takes anyone 15 minutes, they didn't learn a thing.

I'm as gung ho as the next guy but not willing to write off members that have given 10 years of their lives flying sorties as quickly as you seem to be.

They couldn't get to be pilots w/o 100 & 200, so the only extra was 700.

We've already beat to death whether anyone is actually learning anything from these online, open book, testing situations, but the reality is that the test takes about 15 minutes.

I mean, come on, its open-book, multiple guess, on a topic they should already be familiar with.

Frankly the "learning" came for me from the in-residence 300 classes and/or hands on application of the online lessons during missions.

why is it one or the other.  why can't CAP become comliant with federal training guidelines, and retain dedicated volunteers?

it is possible.  the volunteer fire departments and rescue services are doing it.

Having come late to the party, I am not up to par on this thread.  That being said, it would appear that all of our squadron members that didn't have their NIMS up-to-date on time lost all of their training certifications that they had.  Does this mean that they have to start all over?  If/When they complete the NIMS, will their prior certifications show up?  Does this mean the cadets have to go sit through another 8 hour day of communications to get their radio operators license again?  Truthfully, this is all getting to be a bit too much to keep up with in the overall scheme of real life. 

Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 07, 2009, 07:57:54 PM
why is it one or the other.  why can't CAP become compliant with federal training guidelines, and retain dedicated volunteers?

Its not, history has shown that our dedicated volunteers always step up, albeit sometimes at the 11th hour, and get the job done.

Quote from: capchiro on January 07, 2009, 08:20:06 PM
Having come late to the party, I am not up to par on this thread.  That being said, it would appear that all of our squadron members that didn't have their NIMS up-to-date on time lost all of their training certifications that they had.  Does this mean that they have to start all over?  If/When they complete the NIMS, will their prior certifications show up?  Does this mean the cadets have to go sit through another 8 hour day of communications to get their radio operators license again?  Truthfully, this is all getting to be a bit too much to keep up with in the overall scheme of real life. 

Radio license - no.

As to the others, time to check up the chain or with your ESO, because you're not supposed to lose anything - only go into suspend mode with an "**" on the 101 (eservices states) if you don't have the classes done.

They don't have to start over, all they have to do is complete the additional courses.  

[rant] As for those who say I've been doing this for years, how does this help, why do I need to know this junk etc. The simple answer is the game changed, and the rules changed.  They changed the description and rules on controlled airspace a few years ago.  How many pilots quit flying because they refused to learn the new rules?  They have added requirements to the flight review process, How many people quit flying over that.  The Air Force changed its uniforms and so did CAP, people adapted to that as well.  Change is constant.  How many people still sit in their basement listening to a crystal radio with an old bedspring for an antenna?  So they changed the rules, it happens.  You may not like it, but it's a fact.  

As for losing members who have dedicated X years of service but aren''t willing to take the training.  Do you really want to fly with a pilot who is unwilling to take a couple of online courses?  How current do you think he really is?  If he isn't taking these courses do you think he is doing the online Wings programs and seminars?  Do you want an IC who can't get cooperation from the other governmental entities in a search or disaster because he doesn't understand how the system works or who to seek the assistance from?  Worse yet, an IC who tells you to do something illegal because he didn't know the rules changed?

The letter about NIMS requirements was sent out in April 2008, the proposed change to 60-3 that added the requirements was out for comment in mid-late 2007.  These requirements have been "on the street" for at least a full year.  If someone can't be bothered to do a couple of online courses in a year so that the can continue to advance the mission, I question their dedication, and I really don't have any desire to work with or for them.  

So when someone says I put X odd years of dedicated service in but I'll quit before I do a little bit of on line learning, I'm going to say "Thank you for your service.  Goodbye." [/rant ]

Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 07, 2009, 07:57:54 PM
why is it one or the other.  why can't CAP become comliant with federal training guidelines, and retain dedicated volunteers?

it is possible.  the volunteer fire departments and rescue services are doing it.

Interesting that this should be mentioned.  Our local volunteer fire department is desperate for new people. 
Of course, I live in an area with low population density and a decreasing job market where people don't have the required time.  Those in the volunteer fire service have my great admiration.  They "deploy" on a much more regular basis than I do in CAP - good people.   :clap:

It looks like they've got the NIMS Statistics report fixed so that it now reflects all those whose quals have been suspended for non-compliance and basically provides the info that you need to know that 40% of the people who have the Mission Pilot qualification (for example) have been suspended because they haven't done ICS700.

Just when you thought is was safe to go back in the water  ;D

Looks like eServices has another database problem with ES qualifications in Operations Qualifications.

Wing wide here according to ES Staff.

Time for a little more patience.

**UPDATE** - Appears the problem has been corrected. 

Quote from: RiverAux on January 03, 2009, 01:37:45 AM
It looks like the changes are being reflected in the homeland security resources listing report https://ntc.cap.af.mil/ops/hls/resources.cfm

On a national leve we now only have 1265 pilots, which isn't even 3 mission pilots per plane. 

In looking at the regional level reports, there are quite a few states in big trouble.  About the worst seems to be Alabama, Louisiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Michigan, Hawaii, Washington, Vermont which are at 1 mission pilot per aircraft (4 of which have less than 1 pilot/aircraft). 

Alaska has NO mission pilots.

Update:  National mission pilot total up to 1604.

Alaska got its act partly together and now has 11 pilots, but still needs a bunch more to get its 30 planes in the air (that seems a very high number of planes, but it is what the resource database is saying).

Of the other states I mentioned, Idaho and Iowa are still at 1 pilot/aircraft while the others have pulled themselves up to around 2/aircraft.

Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 07, 2009, 07:57:54 PM
why is it one or the other.  why can't CAP become comliant with federal training guidelines, and retain dedicated volunteers?

it is possible.  the volunteer fire departments and rescue services are doing it.

I'd agree. For years, we have taken the attitude that "CAP isn't qualified" from other SAR agencies, and grumbled about it.

Now that we're being told to get qualified in this area, like they are, we're resisting.

Quote from: Auxpilot on January 07, 2009, 07:29:17 PMMaybe we need to put an asterik next to any qualification that does not have the appropriate ICS course completed that says "Not allowed to run with the big dogs" They can still however help out when one of those very infrequent, middle of the night, nobody wants to get out of bed, single aircrew without a Finance Section Chief, false alarm ELT calls come in. ;D

I disagree. Even those responding to "minor" middle of the night missions need to be cognizant of how minor incidents expand and how the ICS expands as part of that. It would not be out of the question for things to expand such from the time an aircrew takes off to the time they land, that the incident go from being handled by a single CAP IC to now being a unified command with a non-CAP ops chief and air director. Our crews need to be aware that this stuff can happen from the outset, how to adapt to such change, and need to be on the same page as other agencies when it comes to terminology.

Quote from: RiverAux on January 18, 2009, 07:17:16 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on January 03, 2009, 01:37:45 AM
It looks like the changes are being reflected in the homeland security resources listing report https://ntc.cap.af.mil/ops/hls/resources.cfm

On a national leve we now only have 1265 pilots, which isn't even 3 mission pilots per plane. 

In looking at the regional level reports, there are quite a few states in big trouble.  About the worst seems to be Alabama, Louisiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Michigan, Hawaii, Washington, Vermont which are at 1 mission pilot per aircraft (4 of which have less than 1 pilot/aircraft). 

Alaska has NO mission pilots.

Update:  National mission pilot total up to 1604.

Alaska got its act partly together and now has 11 pilots, but still needs a bunch more to get its 30 planes in the air (that seems a very high number of planes, but it is what the resource database is saying).

Of the other states I mentioned, Idaho and Iowa are still at 1 pilot/aircraft while the others have pulled themselves up to around 2/aircraft.

Update after 3 months under the system:
Total pilots: 1946
Alaska: Really got their act together and now have 56.

For the other states I highlighted here are their pilots:plane ratios:
AL 4.7
LA 3.8
IA 1.7
KS 1.4
NB 4.4
NM 3.25
ID 2
MT 2.6
UT 3.4
MI 3.3
HI 3.2
WA 2.7
VT 5

So, most of the problem child states have gotten themselves up to about average with everyone else, though Iowa and Kansas still seem to be at a critically short level. 

If you look at it regionally, all the regions are in the range of the low 3s to low 4s.  Remember under the ranking system used on the Commander's dashboard <3 is Red, 3-4 is Yellow, and >5 is Green.  So, we're still in a bad situation overall.

I do have to commend CAP to sticking to their guns on this.  I truly thought they would fold and extend this deadline after they saw how many people failed to meet it.