Countdown to Armageddon

[Short Field]

Rumor has it that the current ** is a temporary suspense due to incomplete ICS courses.  However, on 1 Feb, NHQ will complete remove the ** quals and you have to start over from the begining.  My source is in a position to knonw and it was in writing.   Has anyone else seen anything about this?   

[Eclipse]

Rumor has it that the current ** is a temporary suspense due to incomplete ICS courses.  However, on 1 Feb, NHQ will complete remove the ** quals and you have to start over from the beginning.  My source is in a position to knonw and it was in writing.   Has anyone else seen anything about this?   

Complete, utter, nonsense.

[Auxpilot]

After all, most downed pilots, hurricane victims and lost children's first question when they are rescued is "What is span of control/unity of command?"

Without ICS working, the odds of ever finding them are significantly decreased.

You are correct, ICS is critical for the organization to function. That being said, do mission pilots and scanners really need to know the difference between a task force and a strike team to fly a successful sortie, most likely not. Knowing who to report to and how the system works is good, don't get me wrong but if I am not mistaken, we have found a few folks before this month without the courses.

Most of the courses have been designed to train paid organizations that have no issue sending folks to a three day course during the week. I can't believe that all of the courses could not be boiled down to get the critical data out without taking half of your vacation days to get them done. Just read the previous posts and see how many members just pencil whipped the courses anyway. I'll bet if I handed out a test 90% would get half of everything after their name wrong. That's not education, that just checking off the boxes so they leave us alone until the next mandate comes down.

Some of my mission management stuff will lapse because I can't devote the time to sit through the ICS 300. I am sure that will be the case for many full time folks with three kids and a tank of fish at home to take care of.

I know that it is very difficult but CAP needs to be more aware of the time limits that most of it's volunteers have to committ on a regular basis. If the crap hits the fan I have no problem taking whatever time off I need to help but there is a limit to how much training I can go to and keep myself out of divorce court.

Just keeping it real.........

[Eclipse]

Some of my mission management stuff will lapse because I can't devote the time to sit through the ICS 300. I am sure that will be the case for many full time folks with three kids and a tank of fish at home to take care of.

I know that it is very difficult but CAP needs to be more aware of the time limits that most of it's volunteers have to commit on a regular basis. If the crap hits the fan I have no problem taking whatever time off I need to help but there is a limit to how much training I can go to and keep myself out of divorce court.

You raise a legitimate concern, and the need for in-house training for people who can't get to week-day class is real, however with that said, a lot of wings have found weekend classes to fill the need.

Most of the members I know who have taken the effort to rise to Branch Director or higher are hyper-involved anyway, and if its not an ICS class, its probably RSC, NESA, or something else killing their vacation time.

The aircrew and ground assets, however, don't need 300 anyway, and if they can't be bothered to take a 15 minute online test, well, obviously we shouldn't bother them for missions, either.

[Al Sayre]

What you think of the material, the system or those who imposed it is immaterial.  It all boils down to the Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."   The Federal Gov't has said "If you are going to be on a mission that we are paying for, you must have these courses."  They pay for us to perform our missions and  they provide our aircraft, vehicles and communications equipment.  So you have two choices, do the courses or don't participate.   

[Auxpilot]

Some of my mission management stuff will lapse because I can't devote the time to sit through the ICS 300. I am sure that will be the case for many full time folks with three kids and a tank of fish at home to take care of.

I know that it is very difficult but CAP needs to be more aware of the time limits that most of it's volunteers have to commit on a regular basis. If the crap hits the fan I have no problem taking whatever time off I need to help but there is a limit to how much training I can go to and keep myself out of divorce court.

You raise a legitimate concern, and the need for in-house training for people who can't get to week-day class is real, however with that said, a lot of wings have found weekend classes to fill the need.

Most of the members I know who have taken the effort to rise to Branch Director or higher are hyper-involved anyway, and if its not an ICS class, its probably RSC, NESA, or something else killing their vacation time.

The aircrew and ground assets, however, don't need 300 anyway, and if they can't be bothered to take a 15 minute online test, well, obviously we shouldn't bother them for missions, either.

Your correct in everything you say however there is a tipping point at which even those of us that are hyper involved have to say uncle.

Mission Pilots are required to take 100, 200 and 700. If that takes anyone 15 minutes, they didn't learn a thing.

I'm as gung ho as the next guy but not willing to write off members that have given 10 years of their lives flying sorties as quickly as you seem to be.

Maybe we need to put an asterik next to any qualification that does not have the appropriate ICS course completed that says "Not allowed to run with the big dogs" They can still however help out when one of those very infrequent, middle of the night, nobody wants to get out of bed, single aircrew without a Finance Section Chief, false alarm ELT calls come in.

[Auxpilot]

What you think of the material, the system or those who imposed it is immaterial.  It all boils down to the Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."   The Federal Gov't has said "If you are going to be on a mission that we are paying for, you must have these courses."  They pay for us to perform our missions and  they provide our aircraft, vehicles and communications equipment.  So you have two choices, do the courses or don't participate.   

Sorry, lost my head there for a minute. I forgot who signs my checks.

I pick door #3 - work to make the organization more professional without driving out most of it's members.

[Eclipse]

Mission Pilots are required to take 100, 200 and 700. If that takes anyone 15 minutes, they didn't learn a thing.

I'm as gung ho as the next guy but not willing to write off members that have given 10 years of their lives flying sorties as quickly as you seem to be.

They couldn't get to be pilots w/o 100 & 200, so the only extra was 700.

We've already beat to death whether anyone is actually learning anything from these online, open book, testing situations, but the reality is that the test takes about 15 minutes.

I mean, come on, its open-book, multiple guess, on a topic they should already be familiar with.

Frankly the "learning" came for me from the in-residence 300 classes and/or hands on application of the online lessons during missions.

[isuhawkeye]

why is it one or the other.  why can't CAP become comliant with federal training guidelines, and retain dedicated volunteers?

it is possible.  the volunteer fire departments and rescue services are doing it.

[capchiro]

Having come late to the party, I am not up to par on this thread.  That being said, it would appear that all of our squadron members that didn't have their NIMS up-to-date on time lost all of their training certifications that they had.  Does this mean that they have to start all over?  If/When they complete the NIMS, will their prior certifications show up?  Does this mean the cadets have to go sit through another 8 hour day of communications to get their radio operators license again?  Truthfully, this is all getting to be a bit too much to keep up with in the overall scheme of real life. 

[Eclipse]

why is it one or the other.  why can't CAP become compliant with federal training guidelines, and retain dedicated volunteers?

Its not, history has shown that our dedicated volunteers always step up, albeit sometimes at the 11th hour, and get the job done.

[Eclipse]

Having come late to the party, I am not up to par on this thread.  That being said, it would appear that all of our squadron members that didn't have their NIMS up-to-date on time lost all of their training certifications that they had.  Does this mean that they have to start all over?  If/When they complete the NIMS, will their prior certifications show up?  Does this mean the cadets have to go sit through another 8 hour day of communications to get their radio operators license again?  Truthfully, this is all getting to be a bit too much to keep up with in the overall scheme of real life. 

Radio license - no.

As to the others, time to check up the chain or with your ESO, because you're not supposed to lose anything - only go into suspend mode with an "**" on the 101 (eservices states) if you don't have the classes done.

[Al Sayre]

They don't have to start over, all they have to do is complete the additional courses.  

[rant] As for those who say I've been doing this for years, how does this help, why do I need to know this junk etc. The simple answer is the game changed, and the rules changed.  They changed the description and rules on controlled airspace a few years ago.  How many pilots quit flying because they refused to learn the new rules?  They have added requirements to the flight review process, How many people quit flying over that.  The Air Force changed its uniforms and so did CAP, people adapted to that as well.  Change is constant.  How many people still sit in their basement listening to a crystal radio with an old bedspring for an antenna?  So they changed the rules, it happens.  You may not like it, but it's a fact.  

As for losing members who have dedicated X years of service but aren''t willing to take the training.  Do you really want to fly with a pilot who is unwilling to take a couple of online courses?  How current do you think he really is?  If he isn't taking these courses do you think he is doing the online Wings programs and seminars?  Do you want an IC who can't get cooperation from the other governmental entities in a search or disaster because he doesn't understand how the system works or who to seek the assistance from?  Worse yet, an IC who tells you to do something illegal because he didn't know the rules changed?

The letter about NIMS requirements was sent out in April 2008, the proposed change to 60-3 that added the requirements was out for comment in mid-late 2007.  These requirements have been "on the street" for at least a full year.  If someone can't be bothered to do a couple of online courses in a year so that the can continue to advance the mission, I question their dedication, and I really don't have any desire to work with or for them.  

So when someone says I put X odd years of dedicated service in but I'll quit before I do a little bit of on line learning, I'm going to say "Thank you for your service.  Goodbye." [/rant ]

[Ricochet13]

why is it one or the other.  why can't CAP become comliant with federal training guidelines, and retain dedicated volunteers?

it is possible.  the volunteer fire departments and rescue services are doing it.

Interesting that this should be mentioned.  Our local volunteer fire department is desperate for new people. 
Of course, I live in an area with low population density and a decreasing job market where people don't have the required time.  Those in the volunteer fire service have my great admiration.  They "deploy" on a much more regular basis than I do in CAP - good people.   :clap:

[RiverAux]

It looks like they've got the NIMS Statistics report fixed so that it now reflects all those whose quals have been suspended for non-compliance and basically provides the info that you need to know that 40% of the people who have the Mission Pilot qualification (for example) have been suspended because they haven't done ICS700.

[Ricochet13]

Just when you thought is was safe to go back in the water 

Looks like eServices has another database problem with ES qualifications in Operations Qualifications.

Wing wide here according to ES Staff.

Time for a little more patience.

**UPDATE** - Appears the problem has been corrected. 

[RiverAux]

It looks like the changes are being reflected in the homeland security resources listing report https://ntc.cap.af.mil/ops/hls/resources.cfm

On a national leve we now only have 1265 pilots, which isn't even 3 mission pilots per plane. 

In looking at the regional level reports, there are quite a few states in big trouble.  About the worst seems to be Alabama, Louisiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Michigan, Hawaii, Washington, Vermont which are at 1 mission pilot per aircraft (4 of which have less than 1 pilot/aircraft). 

Alaska has NO mission pilots.

Update:  National mission pilot total up to 1604.

Alaska got its act partly together and now has 11 pilots, but still needs a bunch more to get its 30 planes in the air (that seems a very high number of planes, but it is what the resource database is saying).

Of the other states I mentioned, Idaho and Iowa are still at 1 pilot/aircraft while the others have pulled themselves up to around 2/aircraft.

[Rotorhead]

why is it one or the other.  why can't CAP become comliant with federal training guidelines, and retain dedicated volunteers?

it is possible.  the volunteer fire departments and rescue services are doing it.

I'd agree. For years, we have taken the attitude that "CAP isn't qualified" from other SAR agencies, and grumbled about it.

Now that we're being told to get qualified in this area, like they are, we're resisting.

[N Harmon]

Maybe we need to put an asterik next to any qualification that does not have the appropriate ICS course completed that says "Not allowed to run with the big dogs" They can still however help out when one of those very infrequent, middle of the night, nobody wants to get out of bed, single aircrew without a Finance Section Chief, false alarm ELT calls come in.

I disagree. Even those responding to "minor" middle of the night missions need to be cognizant of how minor incidents expand and how the ICS expands as part of that. It would not be out of the question for things to expand such from the time an aircrew takes off to the time they land, that the incident go from being handled by a single CAP IC to now being a unified command with a non-CAP ops chief and air director. Our crews need to be aware that this stuff can happen from the outset, how to adapt to such change, and need to be on the same page as other agencies when it comes to terminology.

[RiverAux]

It looks like the changes are being reflected in the homeland security resources listing report https://ntc.cap.af.mil/ops/hls/resources.cfm

On a national leve we now only have 1265 pilots, which isn't even 3 mission pilots per plane. 

In looking at the regional level reports, there are quite a few states in big trouble.  About the worst seems to be Alabama, Louisiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Michigan, Hawaii, Washington, Vermont which are at 1 mission pilot per aircraft (4 of which have less than 1 pilot/aircraft). 

Alaska has NO mission pilots.

Update:  National mission pilot total up to 1604.

Alaska got its act partly together and now has 11 pilots, but still needs a bunch more to get its 30 planes in the air (that seems a very high number of planes, but it is what the resource database is saying).

Of the other states I mentioned, Idaho and Iowa are still at 1 pilot/aircraft while the others have pulled themselves up to around 2/aircraft.

Update after 3 months under the system:
Total pilots: 1946
Alaska: Really got their act together and now have 56.

For the other states I highlighted here are their pilots:plane ratios:
AL 4.7
LA 3.8
IA 1.7
KS 1.4
NB 4.4
NM 3.25
ID 2
MT 2.6
UT 3.4
MI 3.3
HI 3.2
WA 2.7
VT 5

So, most of the problem child states have gotten themselves up to about average with everyone else, though Iowa and Kansas still seem to be at a critically short level. 

If you look at it regionally, all the regions are in the range of the low 3s to low 4s.  Remember under the ranking system used on the Commander's dashboard <3 is Red, 3-4 is Yellow, and >5 is Green.  So, we're still in a bad situation overall.

I do have to commend CAP to sticking to their guns on this.  I truly thought they would fold and extend this deadline after they saw how many people failed to meet it.