Proposal for new SAR senior member specialty track

[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.