A new course has been added for session two only. Intermediate Mission Communications Course.
The course is meant to build upon the basic course during session one.
Please check the NESA website under the ICSS school for details.
Thanks all,
What a waste!
Sorry....touched a nerve there.
We've already got MRO & CUL, what's left?
I'll disagree. MRO just scratches the surface on good message handling, and CUL covers technical skills.
I've worked with MROs with a decent grasp of how things work, but had no clue of what was actually happening around them. Additional training in this area can only be a good thing.
Quote from: EMT-83 on May 04, 2013, 02:25:17 AM
I'll disagree. MRO just scratches the surface on good message handling, and CUL covers technical skills.
I've worked with MROs with a decent grasp of how things work, but had no clue of what was actually happening around them. Additional training in this area can only be a good thing.
I don't disagree, proficiency only comes with hands-on experience, but a whole school around that?
Why not just work more missions?
Without knowing what's taught in this new course, I can't answer that question. I do know that there are large gaps in the current training.
I'm not a fan of NESA communications schools. They proclaim to be setting the national standard, but refuse to share curriculum, unless you spend your limited time and money to go there or LESA, their alternate training activity. This sounds like just another proprietary school they'll tout, but not share.
Interesting.
Pretty much the opposite of the Ground and Air crew schools, which, if anything, are trying to export their curriculum.
Quote from: arajca on May 04, 2013, 02:54:47 AM
I'm not a fan of NESA communications schools. They proclaim to be setting the national standard, but refuse to share curriculum, unless you spend your limited time and money to go there or LESA, their alternate training activity. This sounds like just another proprietary school they'll tout, but not share.
LESA and NESA have no relationship, either officially or unofficially. I believe those comm schools are under development, which may be why the curriculum isn't posted.
Quote from: capes on May 04, 2013, 03:26:31 AM
Quote from: arajca on May 04, 2013, 02:54:47 AM
I'm not a fan of NESA communications schools. They proclaim to be setting the national standard, but refuse to share curriculum, unless you spend your limited time and money to go there or LESA, their alternate training activity. This sounds like just another proprietary school they'll tout, but not share.
LESA and NESA have no relationship, either officially or unofficially. I believe those comm schools are under development, which may be why the curriculum isn't posted.
The same folks do the comm schools at both activities. They've been "under development" for 10+ years. I've been told flat out if you don't go to one of those two, you'll never get the training materials. That tells me the materials are dependent on the authors instructing them and are not meant for anyone else to use. I've been reinventing the wheel for years, but without something decent from the Chosen Ones, any hope for standardized communications schools is nothing more than a pipe dream.
Quote from: capes on May 04, 2013, 03:26:31 AM
LESA and NESA have no relationship, either officially or unofficially. I believe those comm schools are under development, which may be why the curriculum isn't posted.
True statement - their is no link between NESA or LESA. I believe that Chuck Bishop may be an instructor at LESA, but I'm sure about that. I don't believe that these curriculums have been developed for that long, but I might be wrong. I can check to see exactly what is being taught in the Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced Comm courses if you folks wish; may take me a day or two. I know the culture of NESA in general is to not "hide" anything, but to make it as accessible to anyone out in the field. There is nothing that NESA GSAR uses that isn't readily available on the website - it is truly the basis for our curriculum. We do create maps, training plans, etc. that are Atterbury specific, but I would be more than happy to share any of that with an interested party. I'm fairly certain that is the goal of the communications schools as well, but I will check on that.
If they teach the mind set that the AUXCOM folks from FEMA try to teach as well as the technical and mission skills that would be a good thing.
OK, what, exactly, am I missing here that is so complicated about mission comms that it needs an entire school over and above A/BCut, iCut, MRO & CUL?
1) Press button, wait, speak.
2) Release button, listen.
Speak clearly and succinctly, avoid jargon, take notes, DO NOT FILTER WHAT YOU "THOUGHT YOU HEARD", or "WHAT THEY MEANT".
Insure message handing forms are written or typed/printed clearly, and that messages are delivered timely to the appropriate parties.
(Rinse, repeat)
Quote from: Eclipse on May 04, 2013, 03:49:51 PM
(Rinse, repeat)
You forgot to lather. >:D
The description seems to lean toward the technical side, but if the materials are classified as Double Top Secret, what's the point.
There is a rumor that a COMT (Communications Technician) qualification is in the works, but nothing official has been released.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 04, 2013, 03:49:51 PM(Rinse, repeat)
You forgot the Sherpas that are needed to interact with the out-of-towner's and their foreign radios. ;)
Oh, that's what the National Communications Plan took care of, never mind.
Quote from: a2capt on May 05, 2013, 04:15:50 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 04, 2013, 03:49:51 PM(Rinse, repeat)
You forgot the Sherpas that are needed to interact with the out-of-towner's and their foreign radios. ;)
Oh, that's what the National Communications Plan took care of, never mind.
Wait, there's a National Comm Plan now?
I had to do the Wing one by 10-April that was supposed to be based on it, and it was vapourware at that point.
Quote from: arajca on May 04, 2013, 02:54:47 AM
I'm not a fan of NESA communications schools. They proclaim to be setting the national standard, but refuse to share curriculum, unless you spend your limited time and money to go there or LESA, their alternate training activity. This sounds like just another proprietary school they'll tout, but not share.
Have you been to either school?
Quote from: husker on May 04, 2013, 03:49:23 AM
Quote from: capes on May 04, 2013, 03:26:31 AM
LESA and NESA have no relationship, either officially or unofficially. I believe those comm schools are under development, which may be why the curriculum isn't posted.
True statement - their is no link between NESA or LESA. I believe that Chuck Bishop may be an instructor at LESA, but I'm sure about that. I don't believe that these curriculums have been developed for that long, but I might be wrong. I can check to see exactly what is being taught in the Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced Comm courses if you folks wish; may take me a day or two. I know the culture of NESA in general is to not "hide" anything, but to make it as accessible to anyone out in the field. There is nothing that NESA GSAR uses that isn't readily available on the website - it is truly the basis for our curriculum. We do create maps, training plans, etc. that are Atterbury specific, but I would be more than happy to share any of that with an interested party. I'm fairly certain that is the goal of the communications schools as well, but I will check on that.
I want to back up what Mike just said. I actually work at the ICSS school where Comm is done. Lt Col Bishop was the lead instructor the last couple of years while the comm school was being developed. Some of the material was "beta" tested there including ICUT. I believe what was going on was that since comm was evolving over the last couple of years things changed too fast to put materials online. But it is definitely the attitude that we share it all online. As the guy who puts it out there for you all to see each school has a curriculum page.
I can't stand generalizations! If you have one bad experience, it doesn't mean the whole program is crap!
I can tell you that the lead instructor is not Lt Col Bishop this year. Major John Randolph from ALWG is the lead instructor.
I will get in touch with him and see if we can get a course curriculum to post online asap. That should help people make decisions.
The material when it becomes available will be put online with all the other stuff.
But I'm asking you please to stop slamming the program. I can tell you that I have not received better training from anywhere else in CAP in my 37 years in the organization. The quality over all is the best.
Quote from: sarflyer on May 05, 2013, 11:15:14 PM
Quote from: arajca on May 04, 2013, 02:54:47 AM
I'm not a fan of NESA communications schools. They proclaim to be setting the national standard, but refuse to share curriculum, unless you spend your limited time and money to go there or LESA, their alternate training activity. This sounds like just another proprietary school they'll tout, but not share.
Have you been to either school?
No. No plans to either. I can either blow my CAP budget on one school and very little else CAP-wise for the year, or be active in my wing and unit and support Encampment. Not a hard decision for me.
Quote from: sarflyer on May 05, 2013, 11:29:08 PM
Quote from: husker on May 04, 2013, 03:49:23 AM
Quote from: capes on May 04, 2013, 03:26:31 AM
LESA and NESA have no relationship, either officially or unofficially. I believe those comm schools are under development, which may be why the curriculum isn't posted.
True statement - their is no link between NESA or LESA. I believe that Chuck Bishop may be an instructor at LESA, but I'm sure about that. I don't believe that these curriculums have been developed for that long, but I might be wrong. I can check to see exactly what is being taught in the Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced Comm courses if you folks wish; may take me a day or two. I know the culture of NESA in general is to not "hide" anything, but to make it as accessible to anyone out in the field. There is nothing that NESA GSAR uses that isn't readily available on the website - it is truly the basis for our curriculum. We do create maps, training plans, etc. that are Atterbury specific, but I would be more than happy to share any of that with an interested party. I'm fairly certain that is the goal of the communications schools as well, but I will check on that.
I want to back up what Mike just said. I actually work at the ICSS school where Comm is done. Lt Col Bishop was the lead instructor the last couple of years while the comm school was being developed. Some of the material was "beta" tested there including ICUT. I believe what was going on was that since comm was evolving over the last couple of years things changed too fast to put materials online. But it is definitely the attitude that we share it all online. As the guy who puts it out there for you all to see each school has a curriculum page.
I can't stand generalizations! If you have one bad experience, it doesn't mean the whole program is crap!
I can tell you that the lead instructor is not Lt Col Bishop this year. Major John Randolph from ALWG is the lead instructor.
I will get in touch with him and see if we can get a course curriculum to post online asap. That should help people make decisions.
The material when it becomes available will be put online with all the other stuff.
But I'm asking you please to stop slamming the program. I can tell you that I have not received better training from anywhere else in CAP in my 37 years in the organization. The quality over all is the best.
I didn't say the program was crap. I said I am not a fan of it. I also put forth my reasons. I asked about curriculum materials for several years, but was always told no. For the last two years I was told if I went to either school, I could get the materials, not otherwise. Sound like any other proprietary school in CAP. Given the samples of materials they have released (the HF ALE power points) I am not impressed. If you weren't the author, the slides are worthless and they assume you have the knowledge level similar to the author, who is purportedly an expert in HF/ALE. I spent many hours researching and updating those slides to include information that someone other than me could find it useful.
Developing materials for training is not easy, but doing it right makes life for other instructors simpler and ends the never-ending wheel-reinvention cycle. I've done it for my Haz Mat Team when I was Training Officer.
Quote from: sarflyer on May 05, 2013, 11:29:08 PM
I want to back up what Mike just said. I actually work at the ICSS school where Comm is done. Lt Col Bishop was the lead instructor the last couple of years while the comm school was being developed. Some of the material was "beta" tested there including ICUT. I believe what was going on was that since comm was evolving over the last couple of years things changed too fast to put materials online. But it is definitely the attitude that we share it all online. As the guy who puts it out there for you all to see each school has a curriculum page.
The so-called "Curriculum" pages are nothing but a series of links to old power point presentations that have been around for at least eight years. To use them, whoever is instructing will need to spend considerable time developing their own instructor's guide.
That's the problem with a lot (the majority?) of CAP "curriculum" - they depend far too heavily on the presenter being knowledgable
about not only the subject, but also the thought process of whomever created the slides.
Slides do not a training program make.
Someone, please, invest in a copy of Camtasia Studio for these!
Run the slides, record voiceover and everything, upload to YouTube for "Play Anywhere" ability.
Actually, you can do it with CamStudio for free.
Nevermind...
I'm just used to Camtasia...I have a copy for work, so it's what I use all the time.
Quote from: sarflyer on May 05, 2013, 11:29:08 PM
I can tell you that the lead instructor is not Lt Col Bishop this year. Major John Randolph from ALWG is the lead instructor. [emphasis mine]
I'm not familiar with this comm course, so I can't really give an opinion about it. But I know Maj John Randolph and he's a very competent professional. He was the chief of staff of the Alabama Wing Emergency Services School for this last cycle and was recognized for doing a superb job. I expect him to do the same at NESA.
ACON,
Major Randolph, is slated to be the lead instructor for MRO training. He is not running the ICSS Comm School.
I see that NESA website now shows Maj Randolph as lead instructor for the basic comm course. He was previously showing as lead instructor for the intermediate course.
Well I felt it necessary to defend the NESA honor and forgot that CAPTalk is full of "Opinions", not fact.
Oh well, my bad.
Opinion: I'm not a fan of the school.
Fact: They are not willing (or at least for the last several years) willing to share the comm school curriculum.
Opinion: The HF/ALE slides used by the comm school and released for general CAP use suck.
Fact: There are no notes to assist in delivering the material.
Fact: Several standard practices for slides were ignored by the author.
Fact: No materials were released to assist with using the slides.
Opinions are usually derived from facts and experiences.
Nowhere did I say the school sucks or the instructors are poor.
It is a fact, that materials were not released for several years as they were in a transition phase. In fact NHQ wants to change the direction of the school from training MRO's and CUL to more one of proving training for Wing and Region DC's on how to mange the wing comm program and assets.
I took the Intermediate Course last year at NESA. It was taught at the same time as the Basic school (week 1). The intermediate course covers many of the additional ICUT modules that have yet to be released. Some of the modules included the recent releases on HF-ALE. The intermediate school assumes the student is somewhat proficient in the actual use of VHF and ISR radios. Much of the work we did was to supervise and assist the Basic school in putting up the 292 mast kits, as well as working with various setups for the HF RDP. We also went into antenna theory, HF propagation, and discussed setups of HF and VHF antennas.
The modules yet to be released are all geared towards CUL types, as well as Comm Officers at any level. We worked on creating Comm plans from a logistics standpoint, making sure any necessary line of communication was covered.
I learned a ton in that class, and finally put my knowledge to use at our SAREVAL last month, when we made a record number of HF contacts using an antenna design I was familiar with from the Comm school.
Any questions, feel free to ask or PM.