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. 

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

I would not support this idea for a few reasons.

The division of operations into multiple tracks is redundant. You can not make Tech in Operations without qualifying tech in ES, Flight Ops and Stan Eval! IMHO, the logistics track makes more sense. You can qualify for tech in any one of the sub areas (Transport, Supply, Maint.) 

The speciality tracks are supposed to mirror staff jobs. I don't know how many times I've said Mission Pilot is not a staff position. The ES Officer is the one who makes sure we are ready for the the ES mission (and that can mean a lot of paperwork). In most cases he or she will be in the thick of it when the bell rings, but this does not have to be the case. I believe the subordinate ES staff positions would count toward the ES track.

If someone wants to just be a MP (or GTL..., but from my experience this is a pilot thing) that's fine. If they qualify for mission grade, give it to them (but please explain that to advance in grade requires back filling the requirements). If they want to advance in the program then explain that staff work is part of the package and guide them into a position and track that meets their ability or interests and the needs of the unit.

Maj Phil Hirons, Jr.
RIWG Director of Professional Development
RIWG Director of Emergency Services

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

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.

While CAPR 20-1 (last updated in 2000) does not list the IT Officer, it is referenced in the IT Spec Track Pamphlet and is available in the on line duty assignment application. DDR was just like recruiting, position and no track. I'm glad they caught up on the CAPPs, but we know there will always be gaps as the various regs are advanced ahead of others.

Maj Phil Hirons, Jr.
RIWG Director of Professional Development

[RiverAux]

I believe the subordinate ES staff positions would count toward the ES track.

Perhaps they SHOULD, but they don't on their own.  While someone serving as a SAR Officer certainly could get a lot of the accomplishments done that would count towards the current ES specialty track, a strict reading of the track guide requires service as the ES Officer or assistant. 

Technically, the SAR Officer isnt' an Assistant ES Officer unless specifically appointed as such in addition to the SAR Officer job.  This actually makes sense as the duties of the SAR Officer and ES Officer (or assistant) don't actually line up completely and they vary more the higher up you go.  For example, one of the duties of the ES officer is handling 101 cards but the SAR Officer doesn't have anything to do with that and the ES Officer at the higher levels is supposed to be coordinating training for all ES specialties, not just SAR. 

The speciality tracks are supposed to mirror staff jobs.

My proposal would do so as SAR Officer is a staff job.  I think you've made an erroneous assumption that this position is related to running missions.  Its not.  However, like our current ES Officer specialty track, they are supposed to conduct and coordinate training, including planning exercises. 

[lordmonar]

I believe the subordinate ES staff positions would count toward the ES track.

Perhaps they SHOULD, but they don't on their own.  While someone serving as a SAR Officer certainly could get a lot of the accomplishments done that would count towards the current ES specialty track, a strict reading of the track guide requires service as the ES Officer or assistant. 

Technically, the SAR Officer isnt' an Assistant ES Officer unless specifically appointed as such in addition to the SAR Officer job.  This actually makes sense as the duties of the SAR Officer and ES Officer (or assistant) don't actually line up completely and they vary more the higher up you go.  For example, one of the duties of the ES officer is handling 101 cards but the SAR Officer doesn't have anything to do with that and the ES Officer at the higher levels is supposed to be coordinating training for all ES specialties, not just SAR.

So what we really need to do is rewright the ES specialty track to show that duty in the CD/DR/SAR jobs count toward ES credit. 

Also...you quoted the duties of the SAR officer....and it leads off with the statment "Assits the ES Offficer".   So technically and defacto ALL SAR officers are Assitant ES Officers.  Just to note an assitant does not have to do and be able to do 100% of the primaries job....you can have multiple assitants who focus on just one aspect of the job.  Which is exatly why they created the job of SAR officer.  It allows units with large ES operations to break up the work load.

[RiverAux]

As I've said before, I don't believe that duty as an "Assistant" should count for Professional Development purposes, but as long as that is the rule we're using, then yes, they should make it clear that performing the duties of the SAR/DR Officers is equivalent to being the Assistant ES Officer in the specialty track.

[Hawk200]

As I've said before, I don't believe that duty as an "Assistant" should count for Professional Development purposes, ...

Why not? And don't tell me "assistants rarely do the job". That's a BS justification. If someone is legitimately performing their duties as an assistant, there is no reason for them not to PD progress. Duty is duty. Primary or assistant position is irrelevant.

Anyway, this track proposal really needs some quantified results, not just some arbitrary qualifications. How does it improve the overall function of the Emergency Services mission? Does it reduce response times to missions? Does it consolidate any responsiblities to a single point?

Also, what happens if that single "SAR officer" isn't available? What downside is there to that? Who takes up the slack? There are loads of missions that not everyone goes on because they aren't available. My former commander is the Wing Director of Communications, and there have been excercises that didn't get out of the planning stages because he wasn't going to be available for them to do commo.

All in all, it seems like this is an attempt to create a "sexy" specialty track with a few more qualifications than existing ones. Yes, I'm that skeptical. You haven't said anything so far that I find compelling. I may be the only one, but that doesn't mean the concerns aren't legitimate.

[RiverAux]

If someone is legitimately performing their duties as an assistant, there is no reason for them not to PD progress.

Please show me the defined duties of the Assistant ES Officer.  There is absoultely nothing that says exactly what they're supposed to be doing.  An Assistant ES Officer might be doing the job assigned to him if he fills the printer with paper so that the 101 cards can be printed out. 

Anyway, this track proposal really needs some quantified results, not just some arbitrary qualifications.

The basic items were modeled pretty directly on the type of stuff we currently ask those in the ES track to do except that I actually increased the requirements.  It would be tougher to progress in the SAR Officer specialty track than the ES track.  If you don't like how they're presented, you need to change all of our PD tracks because they lay out the requirements in similar manner.  I don't know what quantifiable results you're expecting out of them other than that people enrolled in those tracks will need to do the tasks laid out for them in order to promote.  Seems like something we should encourage.

Does it reduce response times to missions?

What does that matter?  The SAR Officer is a squadron staff job and doesn't have anything to do with mission response directly.  However, if a SAR Officer is out doing the things I've suggested to progress in the PD track they will probably be doing things that will result in us having more missions such as developing interagency relationships.

Does it consolidate any responsiblities to a single point?

Its a specialty track.  If you want to change the duties of the SAR Officer, which are already defined, thats a different topic. 

Also, what happens if that single "SAR officer" isn't available?

The same thing that happens if the ES Officer slot isn't filled -- it falls upon the squadron commander to try to accomplish.  Don't see how that makes a difference. 

There are loads of missions that not everyone goes on because they aren't available. My former commander is the Wing Director of Communications, and there have been excercises that didn't get out of the planning stages because he wasn't going to be available for them to do commo.

How is this relevant.  Again, I'm talking about developing a professional development track for a position on the unit administrative staff that has been authorized for a long time.  Admin jobs have almost nothing to do with mission response.  However, if you want to play that came, a SAR Officer following the specialty track will have been giving training classes for their unit in SAR that should be increasing their overall capability. 

[lordmonar]

As I've said before, I don't believe that duty as an "Assistant" should count for Professional Development purposes...

Absolutely outrageous!

How do you get trained except  On The Job!

The only alternative would be to put completely untrained personnel into the position and hope they don't screw it up!

In the USAF a guy fresh out of technical school (what we call a 3 level) must be with a fully qualified person while he is doing work.  Until all of his 5-level tasks are complete and he has competed his CDC (correspondence course material) he MUST be supervised EVERY time he/she picks up a wrench or tunes a radio!

While I know CAP is not the USAF....OJT practices are the same.  If you require "seat time" for completion of a specialty track level....it must be in recognised job with defined duties.

[Hawk200]

I'm sorry, River, but I don't see how this same track couldn't be done by an ES officer now. If there is a Sar officer tasking (haven't looked at the unit breakdown lately), then the slot could be easily filled by someone in ES track.

You say it's a staff job, but you're adding ES quals to the track. Which would make it an operational job. What happens if the person lapses on their ES quals? Realistically, what would a SAR officer do that an ES officer can't? Not seeing anything really different other than a few additionals. You're not addressing the question of what need it meets.

What would the badge look like for this field anyway?

[DNall]

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.. 

Let me correlate that with the national guard...

We drill on average 2days a month (16hrs). Most CAP units meet 2-3hrs once a week, plus a wknd exercise quarterly for a total avg of 14-19hrs/mo.

As a pilot, in addition to drill, I have to be at my unit per month 2 more days for flying and one day for simulators. I live 50miles from my unit. That means I'm driving at min 500 miles per month for mandatory duty. That costs in gas literally more than I get paid.

As an officer, I'm required to do additional work outside duty days to ensure the unit is functioning. That's at minimum 20hrs/mo, and can at times be 20hrs per week. If my soldiers have personal issues I have to spend extra time fixing those problems too. It might be playing marriage counselor, helping clean up their finances, or bailing them out of jail. I drive across town once a week to run with one of my soldiers that's having trouble with PT. Whatever it takes to make the unit successful, that's what is required of me as an officer. If I don't do that, my career is over. If I don't perform to standard then I can & will be fired and my commission revoked. It does not require any kind of disciplinary action. And I'm being evaluated on everything I do by my direct boss and his boss. The quality of those evaluations is my career.

For all this I get paid about $400 per month. It costs me literally more then that in gas to attend just the absolutely mandatory duty days. If I don't stay current, I have to take off work for two-weeks to do a refresher course that costs about 25 grand out of my unit training budget. Now, that's me. We have pilots that live 400 miles away, we have one 2LT that lives two states away. I don't have the math skills to calculate their costs.

I also have to keep my soldiers happy, cause if I don't they'll: a) quit showing up, for which they'll just be discharged if they don't come back for 9 months, and after two years they can come back in; b) find another unit, meaning I can't keep mine manned; c) split train with another unit so I still have to pay them out of my budget for not being with us & I get in trouble when they aren't current on their job training cause they weren't with us; d) they'll show up & not be motivated so my unit performance sucks & my career goes down the tubes; or, e) they'll do their time & get out, which makes my retention suck, which means my unit sucks and again my career is done.

Now, I'm a highspeed guy that really wants to make a positive contribution. I go above & beyond those minimums. I drill a whole other weekend with an RSP unit mentoring & teaching soldier skills to kids about to head down to basic or waiting for AIT; I do a little bit of work for recruiting command; and, I'm at my unit at least an additional half day per week. I would say in total I spend $300-500/mo over and above my pay in just travel expenses to do my job in the guard.

As an officer I have to buy all my own uniforms, which is roughly $2000, with me paying all replacement costs out of pocket (probably $400/yr). I'm also expected to support the FRG & state NG association, and participate in lots of other charities. It's not that I mind, but I'd rather spend that charity time/money on CAP than whatever the cause of the month is for the leadership in my state. 

I do have a family, job, and a life. It's just very busy trying to balance everything. With that in mind, what exactly does volunteer mean again?

The requirements on a CAP member to be actively making a positive impact as a staff officer at the unit and fully current & active in ES are minuscule. The guy stuck out in the woods doesn't care if you're being paid or not, he cares if you can do the job. Being a well-meaning good-hearted volunteer is no excuse for not being current and competent. You have to go well above & beyond the minimums set by CAP to achieve that. If you're having trouble meeting those minimums then you're doing it wrong. You need to motivate your people, instill professional commitment, and re-evaluate how you're delivering training. It is to be sure a challenge, for which the paycheck should be a whole ton higher than it is. Trust me, I know the feeling.

[DNall]

As I've said before, I don't believe that duty as an "Assistant" should count for Professional Development purposes...

Absolutely outrageous!

How do you get trained except  On The Job!

The only alternative would be to put completely untrained personnel into the position and hope they don't screw it up!

In the USAF a guy fresh out of technical school (what we call a 3 level) must be with a fully qualified person while he is doing work.  Until all of his 5-level tasks are complete and he has competed his CDC (correspondence course material) he MUST be supervised EVERY time he/she picks up a wrench or tunes a radio!

While I know CAP is not the USAF....OJT practices are the same.  If you require "seat time" for completion of a specialty track level....it must be in recognised job with defined duties.

That's a good point. I would add, with a qualified and actively mentoring supervisor. Otherwise, it's just a title to go with tossed in the flames & no Training is occurring while On the Job.

[SarDragon]

We drill on average 2days a month (16hrs). Most CAP units meet 2-3hrs once a week, plus a wknd exercise quarterly for a total avg of 14-19hrs/mo.

As a pilot, in addition to drill, I have to be at my unit per month 2 more days for flying and one day for simulators. I live 50miles from my unit. That means I'm driving at min 500 miles per month for mandatory duty. That costs in gas literally more than I get paid.

[bits redacted]

For all this I get paid about $400 per month.

[additional redaction]

I agree with you in principle, and thank you for your participation. I am a bit confused by your cost claims, though.

Five hundred miles at 10 miles per gallon, and  gas at $4 per gallon crunches down to a cost of $200. That's a reasonable worst case assumption, unless your vehicle is a diesel.

According to the DFAS chart, an O-1, <2 yrs, receives $85.19 per drill. That's the minimum an officer can receive, and I'm using that figure because I don't know your rank. The mandatory period you defined is a minimum of 7 drills - 4 for the weekend, and 1 for each additional day. That totals to $596.19.

I'll even use the W-1 numbers to come up with only $582.82.

Please educate me (us) on how that won't pay a $200 gas bill.

[DNall]

Sure, I apologize for the confusion.

I do actually get really crappy mileage out of my 4wd truck, but I'm actually stating gas costs for total duty related travel/mo, not just the 500 miles. I didn't state that very well in my original post.

I just started doing the extra three days/mo at the unit versus another wknd at the RTI, which is 140 miles, but I was getting travel for that and not now going to unit. The RSP I drill with is right at 100 miles away. I don't get paid for that drill or any associated expenses.

50 miles is actually the worst distance. If you live any further then that then they'll put you up in a hotel so you don't drive back & forth each day.

I'm an O-1, which is 340.76 for a 2 day drill (MUTA-4). The 85.19 you're quoting is per MUTA, or monthly unit training assembly, better known as a half day. After taxes/SGLI that works out to about $250. Based on my current duty status, I do not get paid anything for any of the other days I come in. That's cause I'm not personally flying, just doing flight support. Depending on the situation, some people do get travel pay, RMAs, or ADSW training, but it's also very budget dependent & the training has to occur regardless if we pay the guy for doing it or not. We just try to keep it balanced as much as we can, and some people can take the hit a little better than others.

Basically, I drill three wknds per month, one weekday per week, plus homework, and I get less money then it costs me to accomplish all that. And, I'm okay with that. Anyone that's an officer, and mil aviators in particular, could be making a whole lot more money on the outside, and that's true of the guard/res as well. The time is a bigger deal. I can make more money & spend less of it on what I want to be doing. I can't make more hours in the day, or rather more weekends in the month. I end up missing out on a lot of things I'd rather be doing, and that sucks, but it's worth it.

[SarDragon]

Wakarimash'ta. Domo arigato. 

[RiverAux]

You say it's a staff job, but you're adding ES quals to the track.

We already do this in the existing ES specialty track and the Public Affairs specialty track and maybe even others, so the concept of having some specific mission-related specialty requirements as part of a PD specialty track is very well established.  Nothing new there.

[RiverAux]

Comm and Safety specialty tracks also have some minimal ES participation requirements.

[Short Field]

As I've said before, I don't believe that duty as an "Assistant" should count for Professional Development purposes,

I guess I need to turn in my Master Rating in Personnel.       I have worked personnel since enter CAP - it is the ONE specialty that forces you to learn all the others.   I have no desire to be a unit Personnel Officer, but did spend two days a week in the squadron office working personnel issues and keeping the PD and ES paperwork flowing correctly for years. 

You really don't have to have your name listed first on the door to make things happen. 

[Short Field]

By the way, there is nothing in your proposed SAR track that I am not doing or have done (well maybe a bit short on some of the time requirements for Master) as an ES officer except the three IS courses that are not required now by CAP.  However, if you need them, I will be glad to teach them.  Experience and formal schools in planning and executing joint forces level (multi-wing, multi-service, multi-country) exercises does help.

ES Officers make the ES Mission work for CAP.  But as with any CAP specialty or Ops Qual, despite how strongly you write the requirements, there will be CAP units and wings that pencil-whip the requirements.  I can't find anything in a SAR track that the ES track would/should be doing.

[RiverAux]

I see it more as a matter of focus.  Having a separate specialty track for SAR/DR would allow those with an interest in those fields to work in them and not necessarily deal with the rest of it.  I think it would be to our advantage to have SAR and DR specialitsts at all levels and having specialty tracks would encourage that.  I think CAP agrees about the need for specialists or we wouldn't have those staff positions in the first place.  I'm just proposing a way to make those positions a bit more meaningful by laying out some guidelines for the sort of capabilities we would like to see out of the people in those jobs.

I am open to putting as many SAR-related requirements into this proposed track as possible, so just look at what I proposed as a starting point. 

I guess I need to turn in my Master Rating in Personnel.

Thats ok, I'll grandfather you in....

[Short Field]

Having a separate specialty track for SAR/DR would allow those with an interest in those fields to work in them and not necessarily deal with the rest of it. 

If SAR/DR is taken out of ES, what is left - CD??  All three are wrapped together very tightly and the training and agreements that effect one, effects the others.  The skills needed to take photo for CD are the same as for DR and SAR.  Planning coverage of the target area is similar as well.  The customers are different, but the skill sets needed to satisfy the requirements are very similar.  It is all accomplished by the same airplanes, crews, ground teams, and mission base staffs.  You need to have the same people planning it all.

[davedove]

Also, what happens if that single "SAR officer" isn't available?

The same thing that happens if the ES Officer slot isn't filled -- it falls upon the squadron commander to try to accomplish.  Don't see how that makes a difference. 

That's not completely accurate.  Based on 20-1, if there is no SAR Officer, it falls to the ES Officer.  Based on the organization of the unit, it may next fall to the Ops Officer (ES can be split out of Ops at the discretion of the Commander).  After all that, then it would fall to the Commander, who is of course ultimately responsible.

If you wanted to create a different track for SAR Officer, it seems to me that you also ought to have one for ES Training Officer and DR Officer, since they are equal in the org chart.

I really wonder about the need for this though.  All the units I have seen, there were never enough people around and the ES Officer just perform all the functions for these different duties, maybe with an assistant.  The only place I have seen it split out is at the Wing level, and MD Wing even has it split out even further, with both an Air and a Ground SAR Officer.

[jimmydeanno]

Also, what happens if that single "SAR officer" isn't available?

The same thing that happens if the ES Officer slot isn't filled -- it falls upon the squadron commander to try to accomplish.  Don't see how that makes a difference. 

That's not completely accurate.  Based on 20-1, if there is no SAR Officer, it falls to the ES Officer. 

According ot 20-1 there isn't an IT Officer either, those job descriptions are so vague and out of date - I wouldn't trust them...

[RiverAux]

That's not completely accurate.  Based on 20-1, if there is no SAR Officer, it falls to the ES Officer.  Based on the organization of the unit, it may next fall to the Ops Officer (ES can be split out of Ops at the discretion of the Commander).  After all that, then it would fall to the Commander, who is of course ultimately responsible.

I was assuming that there wasn't an ES Officer either.  ES has always been split from Ops whereever I've been so I don't think of the Ops officer in that way. 

If you wanted to create a different track for SAR Officer, it seems to me that you also ought to have one for ES Training Officer and DR Officer, since they are equal in the org chart.

And I mentioned somewhere in the depths of the thread that a DR track was probably justified.  However, if we have an SAR Officer Track and a DR Officer track, each of which does focus on training for that specialty (in addition to the existing ES Officer track), I don't think an ES  Training Officer track would be needed as it would be more than covered by the others.  Additionally, in looking at 20-1, I'm not sure I even see ES Training Officer as an official position in the hierarchy.  It certainly doesn't have its own job description like the SAR and DR Officers do.  There is an Operations Training Officer, but frankly not all the positions in the Ops shop makes sense to me for use at squadron level.

[Short Field]

Additionally, in looking at 20-1, I'm not sure I even see ES Training Officer as an official position in the hierarchy.  It certainly doesn't have its own job description like the SAR and DR Officers do. 

Page 29:
Emergency Services Training Officer
Assists the ES Officer in managing and directing ES training activities. They shall:
Document ES training accomplished and qualifications earned.
Coordinate with the SAR and DR officers to ensure that training programs are adequate.
Coordinate with external agencies for other ES training.
Prepare and process CAPFs 101 for new or requalifying personnel.
The ES training officer should be familiar with CAPP 213, CAPR 50-15, CAPR 55-1, CAPR 60-1, CAPP 2 and applicable FEMA publications.

[RiverAux]

Opened up the old version again.   

[SarDragon]

Who do you say opened the olde version? The "current" one is dated 29 May 2000, and is the source of the quoted text.

[RiverAux]

I meant I opened up the old version when making my statement, hence the "embarrassed" emoticon.

[SarDragon]

Well then, why don't you go here, and get all the latest pubs, and get rid of that olde stuff? Or at least move it into a dated archive folder. 

[RiverAux]

have the new stuff, just opened up the wrong one by mistake. 

[Hawk200]

have the new stuff, just opened up the wrong one by mistake. 

I add the date to the file name. Windows pretty much puts them in order. Got a few copies of older stuff on the computer at home. Won't be able to get to those for almost a year, but it's good historical info.

[SarDragon]

I know this is drifting, but my last 2 cents.

I put each pubs ZIP file d/l into its own folder with the d/l date on it, and unZIP there. Saves renaming files, and keeps a complete library in one place. When I get ambitious, I cull the extra copies out of the older folders. Or not. They don't take up all that much disk space - @ 500 MB for 4 years of quarterly d/l's.

[oak2007]

7 years to achieve a master rating. yea sign me up.....NOT

[RiverAux]

7 years to achieve a master rating. yea sign me up.....NOT

Don't go into public affairs -- 5 years right now. 

[NavLT]

I don't think we need a new specialty track as much as we need to have a much more robust method to review, update and validate the existing ones.

Do I think that the Staff officer should be proficient in the area they are staffing .....Yes.

I find giving Joe Senior member a spot on the Org chart that they are not trained in serves no purpose but vanity.  If they want to do the SAR/ES officer job let them train and become a tech and take the job until then they just are a gopher for someone else who really is doing the job.

As to the specific items you want them to accomplish, I think the definition of minimum is the least you can get away with.  Anyone who shoots for the bottom of the need will fail when the tempo increases.  I think that national is doint a fair job of requiring ICS based on position maybe they should add it to the staff funcion as well.

VR
Lt J.

[arajca]

IMHO, any subset track (SAR, DR, HLS) needs to be a higher hq officer (group, wing, etc), not a sqdn officer. Similar to the Plans and Programs track. It should also require a technician rating in the main track (ES, in the case). Helps with the big picture.