Available dates for service

[JeffDG]

They were wrong, there is no channel for GES people to do anything, especially DR.

Please cite anything beyond "I was told."

CAPR 60-3, 2-3(g)

g. There are some duty positions that CAP does not have specific specialty qualifications identified. Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member to fill these gaps in order to meet the needs of the mission, but must use good judgment to select personnel who have the appropriate training and backgrounds to be able to successfully complete their assignment.

There are no "DR" qualifications (with the exception of SAR/DR Mission Pilot), as such, it's within the IC's discretion to use anyone with a GES for those taskings.

I presume you will withdraw the "They were wrong" comment now that specific regulatory authorization has been cited.

[JeffDG]

You're actually citing the PROBLEM not the justification.

In true CAP fashion, they ignored the rules for expediency.

There's no point in having the disfunctional architechture  of rules and regs if CAP is just going to ignore them
when it starts raining.

Pick a major mission in the last ten years and that was / is basically CAP's script.

Nope.  This type of GES-only volunteer is specifically authorized and anticipated by CAPR 60-3.

There is no SQTR for any of the common DR taskings, like shelter stuff (handing out food/water) or door-to-door checks on people.  As such, CAPR 60-3 specifically authorizes ICs to select people with GES and appropriate training (Hey, go to the cooler, grab a bunch of bottles and hand them out to whoever is thirsty.  There, you're trained.) to perform those tasks.

[JeffDG]

They were wrong, there is no channel for GES people to do anything, especially DR.

Please cite anything beyond "I was told."

Haven't seen you cite anything for your assertion yet...so I guess people can just "I was told." by you, then?

[Eclipse]

They were wrong, there is no channel for GES people to do anything, especially DR.

Please cite anything beyond "I was told."

Haven't seen you cite anything for your assertion yet...so I guess people can just "I was told." by you, then?

You can't cite a negative.  60-1 & 60-3 have your answers in simple form.

[Eclipse]

Nope.  This type of GES-only volunteer is specifically authorized and anticipated by CAPR 60-3.

100% wrong.  Note even a little.

Your turn to cite.

Don't bother with the "IC may assign reasonable duties" nonsesne.  That's not applicable to this example.

GES is a "license to learn".

Period.

If members want to participate in these activities
as community service or a unit activity, so be it, as long it's properly approved.  But leave any pretense
that's it's got anything to do with ES, or that it qualifies for decorations at the door.

[JeffDG]

Your turn to cite.

CAPR 60-3, 2-3(g)

Still haven't seen a cite from you, other than your word.

[JeffDG]

Don't bother with the "IC may assign reasonable duties" nonsesne.  That's not applicable to this example.

If there's no SQTR for the job, then the IC can assign any GES qualified member.  DR jobs don't have specific training or SQTR, it is 100% applicable.

[Eclipse]

No. If there's no SQTR we don't do it, and certainly not
as GES.

[JeffDG]

No. If there's no SQTR we don't do it, and certainly not
as GES.

So, CAPR 60-3, 2-3g has been taken out of the regs then? 

Do you have a reference that "If there's no SQTR we don't do it"?

What SQTR trains people on handing out water at a shelter?  Or doing door-to-door checks in disaster areas?  These are legit DR tasking that we do all the time, and there's no SQTR for them, and according to the version of CAPR 60-3 that is on http://capmembers.com (not the super-secret version that you seem to have), they are most certainly taskings that an IC can assign to someone who has GES.

Here's the publicly available 60-3 reference again:

g. There are some duty positions that CAP does not have specific specialty qualifications identified. Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member to fill these gaps in order to meet the needs of the mission, but must use good judgment to select personnel who have the appropriate training and backgrounds to be able to successfully complete their assignment.

"There are some duty positions that CAP does not have specific specialty qualifications identified" sounds an awful lot like "There are things we do that do not have SQTRs", and "Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member" sounds an awful lot like GES-only members can fully participate.

[Eclipse]

Mental hoops so that people with incomplete training can play ES, despite not having the proper credentials and qualifications.

Whatever, do what you want.  Clearly you and many others with the same attitude will, and the leadership
supports this position since we wouldn't want to actually say no.

[JeffDG]

Mental hoops so that people with incomplete training can play ES, despite not having the proper credentials and qualifications.

Whatever, do what you want.  Clearly you and many others with the same attitude will, and the leadership
supports this position since we wouldn't want to actually say no.

So, still no cite for your position?

I've quoted the clear and unambiguous language of the regulations.  You're the one who said:

No SQTR, no play.

And:

They were wrong, there is no channel for GES people to do anything, especially DR.

Please cite anything beyond "I was told."

You asked for it, I cited the applicable regulation.  How hard is it to actually say:  "You know, I was wrong, the regulations do permit that.  Sorry."

For someone who criticizes people for trusting the word of "some guy", you act as "some guy" an awful lot.

[fokkerfrenzy]

I'm just confused.  Regs supports it, but you think it's stupid so it's just wrong?  I'm just trying to understand where your interpretation is coming from, besides 'I don't think we should'. 

I'm not trying to be rude, but I think opinion was thrown out as fact, and you got checked on it.  It doesn't need to be a sour mess, just let's all learn from it and move forward amicably.

[Eclipse]

The regs do NOT support it, despite the assertions.

I do not agree that GES allows for anything other then "learning", nor are ICs allowed to just make up additional duties
because they said so.

DR is not even a doctrine of CAP beyond lip service.  The ability to fill in gaps is there for the occasional, emergency
need within the existing lane of operations, not a blanket allowance to venture into areas not normally covered by
CAP, or allow a blanket lane to allow untrained, ill-prepared members into DA's.

These assertions are ridiculous, watering-down of the program, allowed to pacify people for the sake of retention
instead of protecting them, and the people we seek to serve.

[JeffDG]

The regs do NOT support it, despite the assertions.

OK, I've quoted the applicable regulation.  Where's your backup?

Basically what I'm getting from you is:  "I don't care what the regulation says, I think it should be this way, so the regulation is wrong"

[JeffDG]

The regs do NOT support it, despite the assertions.

So, I take it from your complete lack of regulatory citation to counter my quoting of clear and unambiguous regulatory language fro CAPR 60-3, 2-3g, that your position is that everyone should, in this case, believe some guy with no backup, rather than believing the regulations.

[FlyTiger77]

The regs do NOT support it, despite the assertions.

"Shut up," he explained.

[Ed Bos]

Eclipse, you're wrong.

Because someone has GES, they are eligible to be assigned duties on missions. They should not be sent out as Mission Pilots or Ground Team Leaders, because they should be evaluated in those roles before they're assigned.

That does not preclude an IC from assigning a GES-only member from assisting with sand bagging, door knocking, or other skills that can be reasonably carried out.

I've had this discussion several times with Wing/DOSs, CAP/DO, and other folks at NESA. the consensus is that ICs get to use good judgement in these circumstances. The reg cited earlier is exactly the place where this is outlined.

That said, what do people. think should be included in a proposed Disaster Relief qualification? Should there be a thread for that sort of discussion, or has there been already?

[JeffDG]

Eclipse, you're wrong.

Because someone has GES, they are eligible to be assigned duties on missions. They should not be sent out as Mission Pilots or Ground Team Leaders, because they should be evaluated in those roles before they're assigned.

That does not preclude an IC from assigning a GES-only member from assisting with sand bagging, door knocking, or other skills that can be reasonably carried out.

I've had this discussion several times with Wing/DOSs, CAP/DO, and other folks at NESA. the consensus is that ICs get to use good judgement in these circumstances. The reg cited earlier is exactly the place where this is outlined.

That said, what do people. think should be included in a proposed Disaster Relief qualification? Should there be a thread for that sort of discussion, or has there been already?

I would strengthen that in saying they cannot "be sent out as Mission Pilots or Ground Team Leaders."  The exception in CAPR 60-3. 2-3g is clear that it only applies to tasks for which we do not have specialty training.  So a GES-only member cannot be sent out as a Mission Scanner (as we have an SQTR for that), but can be sent out to hand out water at a shelter (we don't have a SQTR for that).

[Ed Bos]

Great point, JeffDG. I should have worded that the way you've pointed out.

[SunDog]

Never knew it was an issue; quite a few GES folks assisted in tornado aftermath in my wing - clean up, shelter work, things like that.  If I recall right, some of them worked under Red Cross supervision.  No controversy at the time, or after. Wing management proceeded as if it was routine, and there was no doubt about the authority to do so.

Freely admit to not reading the cite above, since it didn't/doesn't have personal applicability. But for humanity's sake, don't plant the idea about a DR SQTR; we don't need another low impact, high mantenance process/paper/procedure.  It'll become another paper chase that exalts the trivial and ignores the essential.