Countdown to Armageddon

[RiverAux]

Actually the reason for the short deadline isn't that CAP is being aggressive about it -- in fact it is because CAP has been somewhat on the slow side to implement these requirements.  But, we've got several other threads about NIMS implementation in general.  With this thread, I'm interested in the direct impact of the upcoming deadline on CAP ES capabilities at all levels. 

[ThorntonOL]

Only thing i'm missing is ICS 300 and 400 and I haven't finished my GT3 requirements yet, still need First aid and another mission number.

[Eclipse]

Its not "technically".  Stay home, don't call us, and we won't call you until you get your stuff done.

I'm making this point because I know that this is going to be the next round of uncomfortable conversations we commanders are going to have, as despite the months of advisories, weeks of warnings, and days of desperate emails sent by ESO's all over the country, plenty of Goobers will make they excuse that they "didn't know" or "didn't have time".

Gee, I've been told by a long time/very high ranking CAP member that historically it takes a lot longer to implement things in CAP than one would think & that's the way it is.  Basically giving everyone only 8 1/2 months (April 2008 policy letter)  to complete all the on line as well as the (especially)l ICS 300 in residence seems a bit aggressive.  Perhaps it should have been 1 year for the on linee courses, 18 months for ICS 300 in residence, & 2 Years for ICS 400 in residence.

There's nothing in AF current Policy or Regulations, regarding AF Assigned Missions to CAP that require these courses.  Personally, I've successfully got all the on line FEMA training done; BUT frankly I can't understand WHY CAP would start to limit mission staffing resources availability because a few on line courses hadn't been completed, especially when your primary missions are from a customer that could care less whether these courses are completed or not 
RM

8+ months to take a 15 minute online test is plenty of time.  Anyone active enough to need the classes was well aware the requirement was on its way before April, and has been brow-beaten since then about the requirement.

Why is CAP limiting mission resources?  Because you have to draw the line somewhere, and it might as well be here.  When pilots and field assets start being told they can't play anymore they will step up or step out, simple as that.

Harsh, maybe.  Unreasonable?  No.

Also, while the 010109 deadline is looming, as Ice and others have said, its not a revocation or "reset to zero" - can't be bothered this week?  Fine, get it done ASAP, odds are no one will call before then and when its done, its all good.

We all want to swim in the big-boy pool, but too many of us want to do that without the work that goes along with it.

[♠SARKID♠]

Gee, I've been told by a long time/very high ranking CAP member that historically it takes a lot longer to implement things in CAP than one would think & that's the way it is.  Basically giving everyone only 8 1/2 months (April 2008 policy letter)  to complete all the on line as well as the (especially)l ICS 300 in residence seems a bit aggressive.  Perhaps it should have been 1 year for the on linee courses, 18 months for ICS 300 in residence, & 2 Years for ICS 400 in residence.

For the online courses, if you mean to tell me that someone can't complete in 8 1/2 months what only takes a couple of hours then I call "slacker".  Skip that rerun of Matlock for a day and crank out an IS course.
For the classroom ones, I can understand.  I've been trying for a couple of years to make it to an IS-300 course and I'm just finally going to be able to deconflict my scheduling airspace to get to it.

[davedove]

I can't speak for other squadrons, but at ours those who are active in missions have completed the training, at least the online courses.  Now, that's not all those on the books, just those who are active.  I question how much of an impact it will have on real participation, not book numbers.

[RiverAux]

Well, unlike other areas of CAP, you do have to be moderately active in ES training or missions to retain ES qualifications.  So, while we will undoubtedly lose some of our least active ES personnel, my personal estimate (based on what CG Aux saw when they implemented simlar requirements) is that it will only be about 10-20% will be permanently lost.  Now, I think our initial hit on January 1st will be to lose 40-50%, but once the reality of the situation sets in, I think most of those folks will take the tests within a few months, so the long-term impact won't be that bad. 

[Eclipse]

I just ran my numbers:

24% of my total members are active enough in ES to appear on the report.

47% of those members are at risk for suspension because of IS-700 (or other).

However, of that number, only about 4 of them are regular responders, with too many most likely going to simply drop off the rolls when their proficiency date hits.

Of the 4, I think at least two of them are complete and just not properly recorded (our state using the WMU is causing some confusion on this).

So, while I could lose probably 40% of my resources on the books, in actuality I'm only at risk for a functional 2% loss at "best", hardly an impact.

Bottom line, everyone I expect to see at a mission base (that I have jurisdiction over), is already done.

The greater issue here is why the numbers involved in ES are so low in total.

[RiverAux]

I think you're being way too complacent about those numbers.  What I hear you saying is that your first string troops will be there, but you will lose your entire bench and will not be able to respond if only a couple of your primary responders are sick, have to work, or are otherwise unable to show up.  And, that is just for a typical ELT mission, much less a serious search that requires a week or more of all-hands on deck effort. 

While not everyone is always available and always willing to go on a mission that doesn't mean that those that are sometimes available and sometimes willing aren't worth worrying about. 

[Major Carrales]

The 300 and 400 courses are are problematic ones, these courses are not offered in anything I would consider reasonably close nor often.  What I here, they are just a more hands-on version of ICS with a senario driven model.

In the future, I would recommend that CAP actually spend money to have they put on at a group level...or at least with in 100 miles of places (in the case of Brownsville the nearest one was 400 miles away...for us only 200 miles)  There will be one in Corpus Christi in July 2009.

If we want to continue to mandate this sort of thing, which I do believe in, it will be necessary to make in "in house."  We need in house IS 300/400 trainiers. 

As I said, REGIONS, WINGS and GROUPS my have to drop some money and personnel to make that happen.  If not, we are at the mercy of OTHERS.  Networking aside, it is hard to network when no one puts these things on.

Fortunately I don't need the courses at this time. 

[Eclipse]

What I hear you saying is that your first string troops will be there, but you will lose your entire bench and will not be able to respond if only a couple of your primary responders are sick, have to work, or are otherwise unable to show up.  And, that is just for a typical ELT mission, much less a serious search that requires a week or more of all-hands on deck effort. 

That's not what I meant - this gets to normalizing availability vs. once-a year members who show up to a SAREx and fly a sortie just maintain their quals, but never do anything more.

As an example, a couple are TMPs who are not interested in getting to MP or even MO, so their value is questionable at best - all they are interested in is flying at encampments and flight academies - valuable to the CP and the wing as a whole, but hardly an "ES asset" in the spirit of the term.  They get their tickets re-punched each year during the encampment or academies, and we never hear from them the rest of the year.  Safety stand downs, online training and similar are always an issue and a hassle.

The vast majority of my real responders have completed the requirement, the others aren't the bench, they are non-players, which we need to find a way to keep on the books but move to a different category because they never come out to play, ELT, Armageddon, or anything in between.

[Eclipse]

Sparky - You're right that 300 & 400 are the hands-on training, however I disagree that we should bring this "in-house".

CAP needs to see the "agency agnostic model" that it gets today.  Bring it into CAP with no one from outside and we lose the outside opinions, the contacts, and the real-world of how CAP would integrate into large-scale ICS implementations.

I suppose if its a matter of "do it in house or lose people", you have to "get 'r done", but I would not say that's the preferred method.

I also find it hard to believe that in a state as large as Texas, with all the DHS activity you have with the borders, that there are so few training opportunities.  We're swimming in ICS up North, as long as you take the time to seek it out.

[Short Field]

Last summer I was told by a National staffer that a TTT program was going to be initiated for ICS 300 & 400.  Haven't seen or heard anything yet.  NESA used trainers certified by CAP last summer.  I don't know how many members have been CAP certified or how they are certified.

I attended ICS 400 twice - once by a professional trainer and a few months later by a CAP certified trainer.  The difference was as great as night and day.  However, the bottom line for the majority of our folks is that it will not make a significant difference in how they perform.   As a great American intellectual (AKA Larry the Cable Guy) says, "Git-R-Done".

[desertengineer1]

I'm going through 700a now, and yes, it's a pain.  IMHO, there is a LOT of corporate "fluff" and executive speak, with a little technical info sprinkled here and there.

Definately not much the average member needs, IMHO, but we all have to eat it to stay active.

Interesting - the preparedness module makes it clear that training should be limited to the appropriate levels of involvement.  The knowlege test even has an example (which I incorrectly answered).

I personally don't think all members should have to go through this level of a course.  If you want to "weed out" members (as insinuated by a few posts), you have easier options.  Just suspend thier ES - any squadron ES officer or CC has that option - or just move them into ghost squadrons.

But I digress...  Gotta love CTRL-F....

[0]

Only thing i'm missing is ICS 300 and 400 and I haven't finished my GT3 requirements yet, still need First aid and another mission number.

Do you have any Command Level Positions?   If you don't you don't have to take the 300 and 400.  Those are just for the top echilon.  IC, MSO, AL, etc.

[smj58501]

...Skip that rerun of Matlock for a day and crank out an IS course.

or do it while you are watching the Matlock rerun (or knock out all of them over Monday Night Football... should have them all completed by halftime). Hey, it isn't like these courses require your undivided attention to master

[SJFedor]

Only thing i'm missing is ICS 300 and 400 and I haven't finished my GT3 requirements yet, still need First aid and another mission number.

Do you have any Command Level Positions?   If you don't you don't have to take the 300 and 400.  Those are just for the top echilon.  IC, MSO, AL, etc.

300 is for anything above worker bee. So in our realm, our branch directors and up need at least 300, and 400 kicks in for the queen/king bees.

[RADIOMAN015]

Looking at the policy letter http://level2.cap.gov/documents/2008_04_10_NIMS.pdf
It looks to me like the GES people, don't loose any their authorization to participate in ES Missions   This is good news because sometimes you just need "muscle" for your missions,  senior members that can drive the vehicle for UDF or shuttle from flight line, shuffle some papers at mission base, etc.  BUT I guess couldn't start any training in a speciality?
RM

[Eclipse]

GES-only members don't have any mission authorization to lose.

We've had this argument before, and certainly didn't resolve it, but there is a school of thought, shared by many, that GES is not a "qualification", but only a pre-req to begin training.

Until you are trainee status in something, you have no business on missions - last time I checked there is no "tactical driver" qualification.

If IS-700 is required for GES, then unless you've completed IS-700, you are not GES.

[lordmonar]

IS-700 is not required for GES....and there is a duty postion called driver...the only qualifications are GES and a CAP Drivers License.

[RiverAux]

From the Dec Northcentral Region newsletter, regarding the ICS requirements:

How will this affect NCR? As things stand right now the region will have approximately 50% of its mission rated personnel go non-current.