New course added at NESA

[sarflyer]

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,

[lordmonar]

What a waste! 

Sorry....touched a nerve there.

[Eclipse]

We've already got MRO & CUL, what's left?

[EMT-83]

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.

[Eclipse]

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?

[EMT-83]

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.

[arajca]

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.   

[Eclipse]

Interesting.

Pretty much the opposite of the Ground and Air crew schools, which, if anything, are trying to export their curriculum.

[capes]

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.

[arajca]

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.

[husker]

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.

[ol'fido]

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.

[Eclipse]

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)

[arajca]

(Rinse, repeat)

You forgot to lather. 

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.

[a2capt]

(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.

[JeffDG]

(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.

[sarflyer]

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?

[sarflyer]

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.

[arajca]

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.

[arajca]

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.