Section Chief sign-offs and perforamce

[ammotrucker]

I understand that the SQTR is a set of minimum requirements that will get a members to a certain performance level.  At what point do you feel the members should be released to function as a fully qualified Section Chief?

Then at what point would YOU allow that same member start working for the next achievement.

Scenario is that a member recieved his AOBD on August 18 this year, 28 days later he submits his PSC, 31 days later he submits his OSC and is indicating that his IC3 will be submitted in the next 3 weeks.

My question is what is to fast?  Should we limit the amount of time in each achievement before the next rating is started?  How would you define qualified?

[N Harmon]

IC qualification is sort of special, isn't it? It requires Wing CC approval, I think. So I think that is a good control for ensuring members are sufficiently experienced and qualified for that position.

[Larry Mangum]

It really depends upon the individaul and their exposure to CAP operations.  The time line you describe does seem a little fast, but if they are doing sarex's and more importantly table tops, then it is possible.  What is the experience level of the people who are signing him off on the tasks and prerequisites; if they are top notch people who know there stuff and are not pencil whippers then it definetly is possible.

[Eclipse]

In a perfect, fully-staffed world, yes, progression, repetition, and delay would be nice.

The reality is that most ICS staff at that level are probably wearing multiple hats from setup through demob and working tasks from multiple
SQTRS.  To artificially limit their ability to progress just limits our readiness without much gain.

[ammotrucker]

Who_knows? thanks for the reply.  Just to let you know you will most likely be dealing with this member next year at NESA.  He has indicated that he will be going to NESA this coming year, then returning as an instructor after that.

The problem that I see is that this member has been to 4 SAREXs during this time frame.  His primary function at each was part of an aircrew.  Of these 3 were at squadron level and 1 at Wing level.  The member who signed him off, while I have great respect for in operational terms I do not always think treats the sign-offs of non-group members the same way that he trains his Group members.

At what point would you say SLOW DOWN and understand what you are trying to learn?

[ammotrucker]

In a perfect, fully-staffed world, yes, progression, repetition, and delay would be nice.

The reality is that most ICS staff at that level are probably wearing multiple hats from setup through demob and working tasks from multiple
SQTRS.  To artificially limit their ability to progress just limits our readiness without much gain.

While I agree with the need to get and retain members in these positons, would you as an IC coming into a upstart mission or deployment want to take the time to train an individual who is signed off in the position to do the basic functions?

And in the scenario would you trust this member or any member who has never been on a actual AFRCC or any other mission to be an IC?

I am not the type of person who would normal in lower position limit what you train on.  But when it comes to mission critical positions don't you think we should take the time and demand that our members fully understand the positions that they are asking to participate in?

[Eclipse]

Who_knows? thanks for the reply.  Just to let you know you will most likely be dealing with this member next year at NESA.  He has indicated that he will be going to NESA this coming year, then returning as an instructor after that.

I love that - "I have knowledge to impart to the masses, I have no time to "do", I must "teach".  He Homer, how about you wait to be asked? 

At what point would you say SLOW DOWN and understand what you are trying to learn?

The first time they do something silly that experience would have reduced, or they get uppity with an set.

[ammotrucker]

In a perfect, fully-staffed world, yes, progression, repetition, and delay would be nice.

Eclipse while there are many issues that we obviously disagree on, not necessarly this thread.  Would you agree that if your Wing had an excess of members in those positions that we should take the time to train and demand the repetition that you suggest.

While I have no idea what is happening in ILWG where you reside.  In FLWG most of our ICs have not been utilized to any extent during the post- 121.5 era.  If the issue is not enough members to an over-abundence of members, should we then insist that not rushing members through and compentently training them prior to utilzation on actuals be insisted on.

Is it or should it be mandatory that a member going into IC(t) have participarted in actual missions of any kind?  How do you justify that a member be an IC(t) when never having been on an ELT/EPRIB mission in any capicity. 

Again, back to the subject at hand, at what point do you say STOP, SLOW DOWN get actuals prior to advancing?

[Eclipse]

In a perfect, fully-staffed world, yes, progression, repetition, and delay would be nice.

Eclipse while there are many issues that we obviously disagree on, not necessarly this thread.  Would you agree that if your Wing had an excess of members in those positions that we should take the time to train and demand the repetition that you suggest.

100% - and I would love to see real-world missions in the mix, I know in FLWG you guys get Armageddon a lot more than we do.
Requiring real-world for final sign-off would be an issue for us, though requiring a large, wing-level exercise might be a good idea.

[Rescue826]

If I were the Wing DOS , I would insist that anyone who is going to be an IC have many many actual mission under their belt.
If this member has not participated on ANY actually AFRCC Missions, then I would doubt their level of experience and knowledge.

How can you brief and control a UDF Team or an Aircrew if you haven't been in their shoes?

IC's need to be held to a higher standard in CAP, it seems that the majority of them are sub standard.  Maybe we need to create a IC school or training curriculum. I am a firm beliver that sitting in an ICS-300, and 400 does very little to train an IC.

I would have your Wing DOS setup or show up to a exercise were the 'trainee' is going to preform, and have him/her evaluate how they are doing.  There may be some chance that the trainee might actually know whats going on.  But either way, he needs to get some mission experience before he is an IC....and especially to teach IC at NESA!

you dont see Firefighter/Paramedics that just got certified teaching at the academy a month later do you?....

[Al Sayre]

Problem is that the standard is the SQTR.  If the person performs the tasks correctly to the satisfaction of the SET (and the WG/CC for IC's) they have met the standard.  How are you going to load on extra requirements?  You would need to have an approved supplement to CAPR 60-3.  Otherwise you will find that either no one will want to become an IC in your wing (already a national problem due to liability issues) or you'll be answering to the IG and SUI teams why you thought you could change the standard without proper authorization from NHQ.  It's the same thing with those who add extra hoops for MP's to jump through because they think they "need to protect their airplane".  We have schools for IC's, they are the AFRCC SAR Managment and SAR Planning Courses as well as NESA.  I would support adding them to the curricula if they were given more frequently and in more locations. 

IC is a command function, not an operational function. Adding "many many actual missions under their belt" isn't going to give an IC any better idea about what paper work is required, what teams to call, which aircraft to use, where to search, what agencies to coordinate with, how to feed and shelter the troops, or any of the big picture functions that an IC is supposed to be taking care of.  If the person has sound judgement, actually met the standards on the way up, and is approved by the WG/CC, holding them back does nothing but satisfy the egos of those who didn't have the time or drive to get to that point quickly.  YMMV

[RiverAux]

Folks have forgotten that you don't even need to have done your two training "missions" on real or actual missions anymore.

Personally, I think all SQTRs should have as a pre-requisite that besides being qualified in the job below the one you're training for that you have completed at least 5 missions (with WMIRS mission numbers, whether AF or corporate). 

For example, before beginning Ground Branch Director you would need to serve as a Ground Team Leader on at least 5 missions. 

[ELTHunter]

With only four SAREX's, how is he progressing three levels?  It requires two missions per specialty. Is you mission tempo that heavy that he has worked actuals in between the exercises?

[JeffDG]

With only four SAREX's, how is he progressing three levels?  It requires two missions per specialty. Is you mission tempo that heavy that he has worked actuals in between the exercises?

It requires two sorties (aircrew/ground team) or operational periods (staff).  You can easily fly two sorties in a day, and for a SAREX, getting two operational periods on a multi-day SAREX isn't that difficult.

You can also hit aircrew on stuff like A7s, and staff at tabletops.

[Larry Mangum]

Real world missions are not the place to train mission staff, nor are sarex's in most cases.  When conducting "Missions", you often do not have time to explain in enough detail the reasons why we do certain things. SAREX's are too canned or scripted in many cases to be effective for training mission staff as well, at least for senior staff. Table tops on the other hand, allow us to throw all kinds of things into the scenario and allows the trainee to screw up with out putting anyone in danger.   

Several graduates of the NESA ICSS advance course went back to their home wing and then several months later were called out to search for a missing aircraft.  They sent us an email stating that the training they received through tabletops and classes allowed them to efficiently prosecute the search successfully.  They never would have been able to do so through a pure SAREX environment.

YMMV

[Rescue826]

Real world missions are not the place to train mission staff, nor are sarex's in most cases. 

AMEN!

[JeffDG]

How can you brief and control a UDF Team or an Aircrew if you haven't been in their shoes?

PSC requires both air and ground experience in order to qualify.  If you go to PSC via GBD, you must also have had MS at some point.  If you go via AOBD, you need to have had either GTM or UDF at some point.

[Rescue826]

Correct.  But you can be 'fully qualified' by attending a squadron or group "SAREX" and never see a real mission. That doesent mean your worth a crap.  but you have the paper that makes you legal!


A "SAREX" should only be for qualified personell, to hone there skills only AFTER they are fully qualified.  It seems that every time a unit does any ES training its a "SAREX".  If you spend all your time teaching what should have been taught in classroom or tabletop environments,  how do you gain mission or exercise experience.

Classroom, Tabletops, Functional exercises, Drills.... Then when your qualified SAREX!

Sooo..  if you atteneded the bare minimum "SAREX" at the local level just to get your SQRT signed, and fast tracked that, and have never seen any action otherwise,  are you really ready for mission management?

[Rescue826]

Problem is that the standard is the SQTR.  If the person performs the tasks correctly to the satisfaction of the SET (and the WG/CC for IC's) they have met the standard.  How are you going to load on extra requirements?  You would need to have an approved supplement to CAPR 60-3.  Otherwise you will find that either no one will want to become an IC in your wing (already a national problem due to liability issues) or you'll be answering to the IG and SUI teams why you thought you could change the standard without proper authorization from NHQ.  It's the same thing with those who add extra hoops for MP's to jump through because they think they "need to protect their airplane".  We have schools for IC's, they are the AFRCC SAR Managment and SAR Planning Courses as well as NESA.  I would support adding them to the curricula if they were given more frequently and in more locations. 

IC is a command function, not an operational function. Adding "many many actual missions under their belt" isn't going to give an IC any better idea about what paper work is required, what teams to call, which aircraft to use, where to search, what agencies to coordinate with, how to feed and shelter the troops, or any of the big picture functions that an IC is supposed to be taking care of.  If the person has sound judgement, actually met the standards on the way up, and is approved by the WG/CC, holding them back does nothing but satisfy the egos of those who didn't have the time or drive to get to that point quickly.  YMMV

Just because you attend an AFRCC course, or ICS course in NO WAY makes you an IC, It may give you added knowledge.  But without a firm foundation of how the strategic and tactical, as well as support roles work. you wont be any good an an IC.

An IC has to be able to fill any position below him.  How can you command and be responsible for any mission if you don't know what your guys on the field have to do?  I totally disagree that the IC is not a tactical function.  What about a ELT Mission? you normally don't have anyone exept the IC running the mission!   You have to have plenty of experience in ALL specialties before you  should even consider being an IC!

Anyway....sorry Ammo for hi-jacking your thread.... bottom line...he needs more real experience!

[Larry Mangum]

It is not impossible to train non senior mission staff at a SAREX. It all depends upon how the SAREX is setup; is it more a FTX scenario or a true mock exercise.  It has been my experience that most are run more like a FTX then a real search and in that case you can effectively provide training to almost all mission staff positions below the section chief level. 
AOBD's still need to plan sorties and track aircraft, GBD's still need to track ground sorties and etc.  Same for GTL UDF, Aircrew and such. What you cannot do is train the section chiefs  or the entire planning section very well.