Proposal for new SAR senior member specialty track

[RiverAux]

If you look through the list of squadron administrative positions and compare it to the available specialty tracks, they match up pretty closely.  However, I think there is some room for a couple of new tracks that could be separated out of the Emergency Services specialty track sort of like some of the air ops stuff has been broken into several specialty tracks.  In this thread I will address a proposed Search and Rescue specialty track and later I might do a Disaster Preparedness track. 

But first, why have a generic ES specialty track and two other tracks that deal with parts of ES?  Well, first off, I think if we have them as positions, we should also make it possible for people to specialize in them throughout the career.  Plus, in larger units it will allow for more people to legitimately be working on a specialty track while serving in a legit position rather than having multiple "assistants" that may or may not actualy be doing something.  Additionally, SAR and DR are two of our most prominent types of operations, each of which has some unique flavors to it, and we should be encouraging folks to go beyond the rather minimum requirements found in the current ES track and I would expect them to be experts in their fields.

So, here are the basics for how I see the SAR track breaking down.

Technician Rating
- Serve a minimum of 1 year as a unit SAR officer
-1 year qualified as a ground team member
-1 year qualified as a mission scanner
-Participate in a minimum of 3 SAR missions after qualification as GTM or Scanner
-Meet with at least one local official to discuss SAR operations
-Teach or organize a minimum of twelve half-hour SAR classes during unit meetings
-Complete IS-809 Emergency Support Function (ESF) #9 – Search and Rescue


Senior Rating
-Serve a minimum of 2 additional years as a unit SAR officer after completing the Technician Level
-2 years qualified as a Ground Team Leader
-2 years qualified as a Mission Scanner or Mission Pilot
-Participate in a minimum of 6 SAR missions as a qualified GTL or MS/MP
-Coordinate at least one interagency meeting or conference to discuss SAR operations in your local area.
-Plan at least one SAR training exercise open to other units within the wing
-Complete ICS 100/200/700/800
-Complete IS-120.A An Introduction to Exercises
-Complete IS-139  Exercise Design

Master Rating
-Serve a minimum of 3 additional years as a Wing or Region SAR officer after completing the Senior Level
-Plan at least 4 Wing-level SAR field exercises, including at least one in which other agencies are participants.
-2 years qualified as an Air Operations Branch Director OR Ground Branch Director
-Participate in a minimum of 6 SAR missions as a qualified AOBD or GBD.
-Complete the USCG's SAR Planner Course or the SAR Management Course.
-Participate in or organize a state-level interagency SAR conference.

-------------------------
Yes, thats right -- I would want this person to be competent in both air and ground SAR.  I don't know if we would ever have enough people that are both GBD and AOBD, so I made it an either/or situation at the Master Level.  An AOBD that is also a GTL or a GBD that is also a Observer/Pilot will know the score pretty well. 

I'd be interested in other ways to ensure that you really need to be hooked in with other local SAR organizations in order to advance in the specialty.  One of the SAR officers main jobs is building those relationships, but doing so is sort of hard to quantify. 

[SarDragon]

It seems like this has been hashed out before, but I think you are trying to mix unit staff positions with ES positions. I don't see where these sets of qualifications fit into the week-to-week operation of a CAP squadron. Having these qualifications is great for field work, but they don't seem to fit the staff mold that all the others do.

YMMV.

[capchiro]

Riveraux must live in a different world than I do.  We can hardly keep members trained with all of the requirements at this time.  We don't have enough members to staff the current positions.  There is a problem talking about requiring/having "experts" in areas that are manned by volunteers that have real lives and priorities and only so much time to devote to our organization.  I think we do an really great job considering that we are a volunteer organization made up of people of all ages and all backgrounds.  By requiring more and more, you will only end up with less and less.  Volunteers will only jump through so many hoops before they find some other satisfying and less frustrating pursuit.. 

[NC Hokie]

Technician Rating
- Serve a minimum of 1 year as a unit SAR officer
-1 year qualified as a ground team member
-1 year qualified as a mission scanner
-Participate in a minimum of 3 SAR missions after qualification as GTM or Scanner
-Meet with at least one local official to discuss SAR operations
-Teach or organize a minimum of twelve half-hour SAR classes during unit meetings
-Complete IS-809 Emergency Support Function (ESF) #9 – Search and Rescue

I'm going to limit my comments to the proposed technician requirements and leave the rest to others with more experience in this area.

To begin with, I think the one year of service as a unit SAR officer is a bit much considering that this person also needs a full year of GTM and scanner experience.  Six months is probably more appropriate.  I'd also suggest allowing service as an assistant SAR officer to fulfill this requirement.

Does the 3 SAR mission minimum include SAREXs?  I can see problems with this if it does not as not all of us are "blessed" to be in a high-tempo operational area.

The twelve 1/2 hour SAR classes seems excessive too.  I'd either lower the total to three classes in six months OR require six classes or briefings without the 1/2 hour requirement.

[Hawk200]

I don't see the need to have any more specialty tracks for ES. The point of the ES officer is to train or arrange training for those doing ES work. If people want to specialize in ES, then choose the ES track.

Many of the ES quals require the kind of training put forth, and those go on a 101 card. I know many people consider CAP as an ES centric type of organization, but it's not. We have other missions, too.

I guess it doesn't hurt to bandy about ideas, but we don't need to be creating things just to create them.

[ThorntonOL]

If you (RiverAux) are going to include IS 809 in Technician you need to include IS 800 as that is the prereqisite to IS 809.

Which wouldn't be a problem if you already had it but for a new guy this would be confusing.

[arajca]

Given the coordination aspect of this, it would be better to make it a sub set of the ESO track. Require ESO for Tech and make the SAR a senior/master only, like Plans and Programs.

Specializing in a ES position is more common at the group/wing level. Most sqdns do not have the staff to support a SARO, DRO, and ESO.

[RiverAux]

It seems like this has been hashed out before, but I think you are trying to mix unit staff positions with ES positions. I don't see where these sets of qualifications fit into the week-to-week operation of a CAP squadron.

The ES and at least one other specialty track do merge some ES operational mission requirements into the professional development program.  Nothing new there. 

I don't see where these sets of qualifications fit into the week-to-week operation of a CAP squadron.

Here are the actual duties that a SAR Officer is supposed to perform:

Assists the ES officer in managing and directing search and rescue activities. They shall:
Develop SAR agreements with state emergency management officials and other CAP units, if needed.
Know CAP SAR responsibilities in areas of operation.
Develop a unit SAR force that is capable of responding to request from the appropriate Rescue Coordination Centers or other responsible agencies.
Ensure the SAR training program is adequate.
Develop operational procedures for rapid alerting and assembling of SAR task force personnel.
Coordinate wing SAR evaluations, training missions, and exercises.
The search and rescue officer should be familiar with CAPR 50-15, CAPR 55-1, CAPR 60-1, CAPP 213 and CAPP 2.

Seems very relevant to day-to-day squadron activities.  If this is what we expect of them, why not have a specialty track just for them? 

We don't have enough members to staff the current positions.

True, but how does it negatively impact your undermanned squadron if there is another specialty track out there available for use?  You've probably got all sorts of specialty tracks not being used in your squadron now.   

To begin with, I think the one year of service as a unit SAR officer is a bit much considering that this person also needs a full year of GTM and scanner experience.  Six months is probably more appropriate.  I'd also suggest allowing service as an assistant SAR officer to fulfill this requirement.

The time in position requriements aren't much different than that found in many of the more recently revised specialty tracks.  As to an assistant -- the SAR Officer is already serving as an Assistant to the ES Officer, so I think it would be stretching it to allow service as an Assistant to an Assistant to count. 

Does the 3 SAR mission minimum include SAREXs?

Yes.  I'm not aware of any distinction between practice/actual missions in other specialty track requirements that require mission participation. 

The twelve 1/2 hour SAR classes seems excessive too.

Actually, the ES Officer is supposed to be doing monthly training classes, so I used that as a guide and put in a specific time requirement to make sure that they were something substantial.  However, I wouldn't mind going down to 6, and it might be better now that I think about it, as you would need some of your training time going towards disaster relief, homeland security, etc. types of missions. 

I don't see the need to have any more specialty tracks for ES. The point of the ES officer is to train or arrange training for those doing ES work. If people want to specialize in ES, then choose the ES track.

We have multiple tracks in the Ops field right now, and given that SAR is what we are best known for, why shouldn't we want an option to allow people to specialize in it?  We have the positions already.  Does it actually hurt anyone if there are more tracks available?  Plus, it allows you to legitimately progress in a specialty track if you've already got a squadron ES officer.  Frankly, "assistants" rarely actually do the job.  At most they might help teach a class or two, but they're not processing all the paperwork associated with the actual position. 

If you (RiverAux) are going to include IS 809 in Technician you need to include IS 800 as that is the prereqisite to IS 809.

Fair enough. 

Given the coordination aspect of this, it would be better to make it a sub set of the ESO track. Require ESO for Tech and make the SAR a senior/master only, like Plans and Programs.

I wouldn't have a problem with that.

[arajca]

Here is a few changes...

Italisized red text is the new stuff.

[RiverAux]

For Senior they would need to serve in the SAR Officer position specifically.  Also, I would not include Mission Scanner anymore.  I had it in the tech level as an introductory position along with GTM. 

[arajca]

Moere changes. Basically clean up.

[Hawk200]

I don't see the need to have any more specialty tracks for ES. The point of the ES officer is to train or arrange training for those doing ES work. If people want to specialize in ES, then choose the ES track.

We have multiple tracks in the Ops field right now, and given that SAR is what we are best known for, why shouldn't we want an option to allow people to specialize in it?  We have the positions already.  Does it actually hurt anyone if there are more tracks available?  Plus, it allows you to legitimately progress in a specialty track if you've already got a squadron ES officer.  Frankly, "assistants" rarely actually do the job.  At most they might help teach a class or two, but they're not processing all the paperwork associated with the actual position. 

Yes, we do have multiple Ops tracks. Which is exactly why we don't need any more. Anyone not doing the work as the ES "assistant" in the ES specialty track isn't going to do the work in another one. The idea that people will only progress if they have a specialty all to themselves isn't a justification, it's an excuse.

Yes, a lot of times, the "assistant" doesn't do the job. That isn't a reason to create a new track. Incompetence and dereliction are not going to be solved by creating something new.

Also, being able to "legitimately progress in a specialty track if you've already got a squadron ES officer" is complete garbage. Someone does not have to be the primary person assigned to that track in the unit to be able to progress. You can progress in any specialty track shown as being assigned to you in eservices, regardless of whether you are primary or alternate. That holds water about as much as a sieve.

I can appreciate that you want to make things more efficient, but this concept doesn't do that. It simply adds one more thing to the mix with just rehashed concept or a few new things. It is not an improvement. You don't have to be the creator of the next big thing to be part of the team.

[lordmonar]

Concur....

The SAR officer by definition "assists the ES officer"....ergo he is an "assistant ES officer".  It does not matter that much what title he holds.

The question should be do we need to re-look at the qualifications for the ES specialty track?

I would not have any problem with the technician rating in ES have two or three flavors of entry.  You can have one that is DR, one that is CD, another that is SAR, you can have one that is ground focused, one focused on mission base, logistics.

We already have too many specialty tracks that have no real job (or not much of one).  I don't see a need of creating whole new ones that in the long run will limit where a person can serve.

[RiverAux]

The SAR Officer is definetely part of the ES "shop" and yes would obviously be assisting the ES officer in the overall ES progam at the unit.  But, it is a very legitimate position that could take up the full-time attention of a CAP person assigned to that duty.  The position has specific assigned duties and an officer in that position can be judged on their ability to carry them out.  Therefore it is entirely appropriate that they have their own specialty track focused on their job in the squadron. 

Besides the benefit to the individual member, having a SAR specialty track with some version of the requirements that I suggested regarding interagency relationships would help build the relationships with outside agencies that are so criticial, especially in terms of land SAR.

But just how is an generic assistant in a unit with an ES officer supposed to accomplish some of the tasks outlined in the current ES specialty track?  Only one person in a unit at a time can, for example, develop the alert roster or be responsible for processing 101 cards.  Say you've just entered the specialty track   
but the ES officer just wrote the ES training plan for the year -- now you've got to wait a year to get that box checked for yourself. 

[lordmonar]

Let me chuck in an AD USAF perspective.

I am a 2E171 Satellite, Wideband and Telemetry Systems Craftsman.  Over my 22 years my AFSC has merged with three other AFSCs.

As a generalist I can (or should be able to) do each one of the SEVEN major subset "jobs" withing my skill code. (heavey sat-comm, tactical sat-comm, Long-Haul micro-wave, long-haul Tropospheric Scatter links, Tactical Tropo-comm, fixed tech control maintenance, and Test & Evaluation Telemetry)(I currently work on Predators...go figure  ).

Now....each and every one of these jobs take up the full time attention of those people doing it and yet the USAF (and so do I) figures it is a better management of the people by combining similar career fields into one.  This allows them to move people around easier...it opens more locations...allows for a greater breath of experince.

Now for how that applies to the ES specialty track.

If you are a SAR, CD, or DR track rated, you are stove piped into that specialty track.  You may be a master rated DR rated officer but if a SAR officer job opens up at the group or wing level you cannot apply for the job as the SAR officer job requires (or should) a senior rating in SAR.

So either we lower the requirments for our group/wing/regional levels to allow to cross training time or we leave the system alone.

Specilations may be a good thing and we most certainly could build specific "SHRED OUTS" (what the USAF calls the specific jobs within the same AFSC) at the tech and maybe senior levels to allow for a SAR officer to get his tech rating in a smaller specific job....but it builds into the system that the officers build up to taking on over all experstise in the skill set we call ES.

[RiverAux]

If you are a SAR, CD, or DR track rated, you are stove piped into that specialty track.  You may be a master rated DR rated officer but if a SAR officer job opens up at the group or wing level you cannot apply for the job as the SAR officer job requires (or should) a senior rating in SAR.

Actually no. There are is no requirement for anyone to be rated in the specialty track for the office that they hold.  Obvioulsy, it would be better to be rated, and it certainly doesn't help your grade on the Compliance Inspection, but it isn't a requirement.  So, would you rather that your new Wing DR officer have been serving many years as a SAR officer and have obtained a Master rating in that field or a guy who obtained his ES rating by never actually being the primary ES Officer at any level (which is entirely possible under the current system)?  Which one has a better track record of actually getting the job done? 

Keep in mind that CAP members can get rated in as many specialty tracks as they are interested in.  In fact, quite a few long-term CAP members are rated in multi-field due to "career changes".  I'm an example of that myself.  I was Master rated in one field and then was asked to step up and take another position in which I had little CAP experience (but a lot of real world experience).  Now, I'm progressing in the specialty track in the other rating. 

Heck, it isn't that unusual for the same member to be holding several different positions at the same time and progressing in both tracks concurrently.  So, the Air Force analogy sort of breaks down there. 

By the way, a CD track isn't feasible since that position is only authorized at the Wing level.   

[lordmonar]

Then what are we talking about?

Also.....I know what 20-1 says...but there are squadrons with CD officers.

My felling is that you are so tied into "what the regs say" that you need a specialty track for each and every duty position.  I just don't think that we need to spend the time and effort to develope these tracks...which as you say do not "really" matter in the long run.

[RiverAux]

I didn't come up with the proposal based on anything doing with the regulations.  It is a sincere belief that the SAR Officer can be a very important position at all levels within CAP and has responsibility for one of our most important and most widely understood program and at the same time I believe it is underutilized.  I would like to see this position focused primarily on building the relationships with other agencies needed to ensure that we are at the table when discussing ground SAR in particular, in which we have a lot of capability, but very little use.

Can all of the above be done without a specific specialty track?  Possibly, but I feel that having a specialty track for that field gives us the opportunity to more firmly guide members interested in the field towards expanding their horizons beyond CAP more than they might if left on their own. 

Why have specialty tracks at all when they aren't required to hold a specific position in CAP?  Well, the way I look at it, it provides those who are really interested in the field an opportunity to learn more in a structured way to build an ideal program at their unit by offering them real incentives to follow the program (promotion).   Sure, a guy might be the squadron ES officer for 20 years without getting a technician rating and he might even do a decent job at it, but if he wants to get promoted he has to up his game a little bit and accomplish the tasks in the pamphlets. 

The thing is that CAP can only accomplish so much by directives from above (i.e, a regulation requiring the squadron SAR officer to meet with local officials on a yearly basis) since there is very little that can be done to punish the guy or force him to do it if he doesn't really want to.  His option is always to drop the position.  So, the specialty tracks are essentially carrots to get people to do what we really want done without forcing them to do it. 

So this explains why we have specialty tracks for almost every position that can be found on the organization chart.  However, in some areas they stopped at the top of the "expandable" positions and I think this is a mistake.  We should be offering as many potential career fields as possible to make the choices as attractive as possible to those looking to join CAP.  It doesn't cost us anything to do so other than a little adminstrative time coming up with the specialty guide and adding some options in eservices and has no negative drawbacks that I can see.   

By the way, some might say -- aren't you the same guy recommending the elimination of the Administration Officer at squadrons?  Well, I just look at each postion and whether or not it is needed.  I see the SAR Officer and DR Officer as essential positions in our organization fulfilling very important duties.  I just happen to think that the need is no longer there for Administration. 

[Hawk200]

River, it seems like you have this idea that there needs to be a specialty track for just about everything, or that we should somehow make all ES quals into specialty tracks. It's not necessary. 

We've been doing just fine with what we have, it's worked for a lot longer than a lot of us here have even been around. There are probably a few things that could stand some revamping, but that would be better served than just creating something new and leaving the original stuff behind.

But, if you feel that it will so completely turn CAP around, then write it up, send it up the chain. If the rest of the chain thinks it is worth something, then they'll adopt it. Be ready for them not to. So far you are the only person in your thread that is absolutely convinced that this is the thing that will make the program so much better. You might get lucky, and get the person that signs off everything without really reading it.

[RiverAux]

We've been doing just fine with what we have, it's worked for a lot longer than a lot of us here have even been around.

Just because its the way we've always done it, doesn't mean it is the best way. 

Heck, right now we've got a senior member specialty track that doesn't even match up with an authorized position on the organizational chart (the IT Track).  Just a few years ago we added a specialty track for recruiters, a position which has been on the chart for years.  The obvious conclusion to draw from this change is that they thought that developing a specialty track for it has the potential to improve the performance of people in that position. 

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think this would solve all of CAP's problems.  Hardly.  However, I think it would be a small improvement in an important aspect of our program.  Just because something doesn't fix everything doesn't mean that its not worth doing.

Be ready for them not to.

No kidding.  Just how many ideas originating on CAPTalk have been implemented in CAP?  If we restricted our CAPTalk proposals to just those that are almost certain to be approved by CAP and the AF, this would be a really quiet place.