Available dates for service

[Brit_in_CAP]

**Snipped rest of the text to emphasize the last piece
** 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.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[JeffDG]

**Snipped rest of the text to emphasize the last piece
** 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.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Concur.  The creation of a "DR SQTR" would eliminate our flexibility to use people to do jobs that don't require specialized training.

We have a group of people who understand the ICS system, and can snap in and provide volunteer labour in DR situations.  If we start layering a bunch of qualifications on top of a basic understanding of how to operate within ICS (which is required for GES), we become more tail, less dog.

[Eclipse]

More nonsense - we can't pick up a radio without special training, but we can allow people to go into hazardous areas
with nothing more then an online test?

Makes my point even more.

We absolutely need a DR Doctrine and a set of DR SQTRs, and until then we should stay out of it.

[husker]

The turn of this discussion towards a DR SQTR is interesting.  I'm quite surprised by (at least the thus far) negativity towards a potential Disaster Relief curriculum and SQTR.  I've spent quite a bit of time talking to members around the country, and it seems to be a topic of quite a bit of interest in moving forward with such a thing.  If we look at the numbers that show our SAR missions decreasing, a DR curriculum has generated quite a bit of interest from members.

Is the basis for not wanting one the idea that an IC could not use no DR rated members in such tasks or missions?

[JeffDG]

More nonsense - we can't pick up a radio without special training, but we can allow people to go into hazardous areas
with nothing more then an online test?

Makes my point even more.

So, still not willing to accept that you're wrong, and the regulations disagree with you, eh?  (Oh and for the record I've not made "assertions", I've quoted actual, real, written regulations...you're the one making "assertions")

Yep, we need a SQTR for Water-Hander-Outer at a shelter...yessiree.

[Eclipse]

The basis is a bunch of people who can't be bothered to actually do proper training and maintain current
but want to show up when the water is rising and "help".

That and NHQ which is more focused on the uniform and grade system right now then actual mission-centric
curriculum and organizational updates.

[Eclipse]

Yep, we need a SQTR for Water-Hander-Outer at a shelter...yessiree.

If you view it simply as "handing out water", yo clearly don't understand the question.

[JeffDG]

Is the basis for not wanting one the idea that an IC could not use no DR rated members in such tasks or missions?

That would be part of my basis.  The regulation is clear (Bob's assertions to the contrary notwithstanding), that ICs can use any GES personnel for tasks for which we do not have specialized training.  If we were to provide some kind of specialized training, there would be a bunch of baracks lawyers who would claim that it covers all DR taskings, and suddenly, you would need to be a qualified Water-Hander-Outer in order to assist in a shelter.

The second reason is that every disaster is different.  The skillset for a generic DR SQTR would be massive, and would change after every event, and we'd constantly be training to fight the last battle.

On SAR, there are a discreet set of tools and skills that we use, and that are useful every time.  Tracking down an ELT doesn't measurably change from mission to mission.  Neither does how to conduct a line search.  Does our DR SQTR cover hurricanes?  Tornadoes?  Earthquakes?  Because each of these has a different skillset involved in responding. 

Do we make folks in MTWG learn about Hurricane Response, because if MTWG is impacted by a hurricane, it's going to be a lot bigger than we want to deal with.

[JeffDG]

Yep, we need a SQTR for Water-Hander-Outer at a shelter...yessiree.

If you view it simply as "handing out water", yo clearly don't understand the question.

But you're saying that if we're assisting with a shelter, we need people who have a SQTR that trains them in water distribution before we can use them for that tasking.  Lots more things happening, but that's one.

Again, your unfounded assertions notwithstanding, the regulations clearly permit ICs to use GES only people in these situations.  Rightly so.

[Eclipse]

Again, your assertions notwithstanding, the regulations clearly permit ICs to use GES only people in these situations.  Rightly so.

The the interpretations of the regulations needs to be changed, especially with people who purport to be ICs.

The regulations, as written, are intended to allow ICs to back-fill inconsequential areas of need, not make up
capabilities as they see fit.

Allow a GES-only member to help with finance?  OK, fine.

Wander into a DA to "help"?

Nope.  100% No.  And if "Wing/DOS, ICs, and NESA" believe that, they need a swift correction, because in the
conservatively environment of CAP operations, that was clearly never the intention.

[JeffDG]

Again, your assertions notwithstanding, the regulations clearly permit ICs to use GES only people in these situations.  Rightly so.

The the interpretations of the regulations needs to be changed, especially with people who purport to be ICs.

The regulations, as written, are intended to allow ICs to back-fill inconsequential areas of need, not make up
capabilities as they see fit.

Allow a GES-only member to help with finance?  OK, fine.

Wander into a DA to "help"?

Nope.  100% No.  And if "Wing/DOS, ICs, and NESA" believe that, they need a swift correction, because in the
conservatively environment of CAP operations, that was clearly never the intention.

Ummm...it's not an "interpretation" of the regulation.  It's the ACTUAL TEXT of the regulation as adopted by CAP.

Here, you seem to pussyfoot around what the reg ACTUALLY SAYS:

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.

Since you seem to be labouring to find some actual justification for your position, here's the full reg for you:
http://capmembers.com/media/cms/R060_003_075A4369FBA8E.pdf

Let's break this down:

"There are some duty positions that CAP does not have specific specialty qualifications identified."  This acknowledges that CAP does not, nor will they ever, have everything defined with a curriculum and qualification process.  Not possible to do so.

"Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member to fill these gaps in order to meet the needs of the mission," So, ANY CAP IC can appoint ANY GES QUALIFIED MEMBER.  Is that ambiguous in any way, shape or form?

"but must use good judgment to select personnel who have the appropriate training and backgrounds to be able to successfully complete their assignment."  Pretty straightforward there too.  Look at what the person knows how to do, and let them do it.  If someone is an IT guy, I can let him set up a network at a mission base (no SQTR yet for "Mission IT Officer", so it falls under the exception).  If someone seems fairly healthy and is not a complete and utter moron, I can let them hand out water at a shelter that is being operated and where we're helping out.

I can't get you how can twist a clear and unambiguous line like "Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member" into some kind of prohibition, other than the fact that you shot your mouth off without actually checking the regs, and are now unwilling to admit that you were wrong.

[Eclipse]

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.

Missed that while you were so busy telling me I was wrong.

The average "GES-only" member is not "appropriately trained for anything.

[JeffDG]

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.

Missed that while you were so busy telling me I was wrong.

The average "GES-only" member is not "appropriately trained for anything.

Nope.  You keep saying that GES people are not authorized.  At least you've now acknowledged that there isn't a secret-squirrel version of 60-3 that doesn't include this.

Look at the examples I just cited.  I've cited many examples of "appropriate training and backgrounds".  You're still dead wrong.

[Eclipse]

Not trained = "not authorized".

I hope you don't get someone hurt proving how "right" you are.

[JeffDG]

Not trained = "not authorized".

I hope you don't get someone hurt proving how "right" you are.

Cite?

"Here, go hand out these water bottles."  You've now received training appropriate to the duties assigned.  Congratulations.

[JeffDG]

Just as a quick summary of all the "You can't ever do this" despite multiple citations to the actual text of the regs:

No SQTR, no play.

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

Please cite anything beyond "I was told."

60-1 & 60-3.

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

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.

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

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.

[Eclipse]

I stand by every one of those statements.

[Eclipse]

"Here, go hand out these water bottles."  You've now received training appropriate to the duties assigned.  Congratulations.

Have you ever actually been in a DA? 

There's more to the safety of the member and the people you are trying to help then handing them a bottle.

Not being a mission liability is a huge part of the training.

[JeffDG]

I stand by every one of those statements.

So, you believe the regs only apply when you don't disagree with them.

CAPR 60-3 2-3g is clear and unambiguous, and contradict what you say explicitly.  Feel free to operate as you wish, but please stop spreading myths to others.

[JeffDG]

"Here, go hand out these water bottles."  You've now received training appropriate to the duties assigned.  Congratulations.

Have you ever actually been in a DA? 

There's more to the safety of the member and the people you are trying to help then handing them a bottle.

Not being a mission liability is a huge part of the training.

Still just "some guy" saying that quotes from the regulations are incorrect.  You started the concept that folks should demand a cite and not believe "some guy", now you're the "some guy" who can't admit he is wrong by the letter of the regs.