ES Specialty Qualifications

[Claar]

What counts as an ES specialty qualification?  Is it anything under the ES and OPS drop-down menu in the SQTR page, or are qualifications only specialty TRACKS?  What I am specifically wondering is whether or not my CERT or MSA qualifications in eServices counts as a specialty qualification towards my ES patch.

[Eclipse]

MSA does.

[Claar]

Then I assume CERT doesn't?

[Eclipse]

"3. Requirements for Award of the CAP Emergency Services Patch. Current and qualified in accordance with CAPR 60-3 CAP Emergency Services Training and Operational Missions 26 December 2012 as a general emergency services member with one additional specialty qualification."

MSA is a specialty qualification, CERT is not.

[lordmonar]

It is in OPS Qaulifcations...got a SQTR and everything.

[Luis R. Ramos]

MSgt:

All the following have SQTRs:

IS 100
IS 200
IS 700
IS 800
ICS 300
ICS 400

So now, because these have SQTRS they are ES specialty qualifications?

[lordmonar]

I don't know.....please provide me with a definition of ES Specialty Qualifications.

In Ops Qual....it lists the IS courses as "TASKS" but cert is listed as an Achievement just like all the other Specialties.

It requires GES and OPSEC to get qualified.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.....it probably is a duck.....granted it may be a goose with a throat condition....but IMHO it is an ES specialty just like the others.

YMMV

[Eclipse]

CAP doesn't do or train Cert.

Its in there in anticipation of future implementation.

The latest 60-3 pretends CAP does "CERTS" (with Retsyn!), so now GTs are Two! Two! Two Teams in one...

If your CC accepts that CERT is a qual, he can approve the badge, if not, he won't.

[Panache]

We recently got a new member of our squadron who is on the local CERT team.  Once we plugged in his CERT qualification into eServices (he had already completed CAPT 116), the system flagged him for his Emergency Services Patch.

[Camas]

MSgt:
All the following have SQTRs:
IS 100
IS 200
IS 700
IS 800
ICS 300
ICS 400
So now, because these have SQTRS they are ES specialty qualifications?

What you've listed are "tasks" and those are additional requirements for advanced training to qualify for"achievements".
An achievement such as MSA or MRO would qualify for the ES patch.
Earning a task alone does not; it's simply a requirement that must be met for qualification in an ES achievement along with other requirements such as familiarization and preparatory or advanced training of which the courses you've listed are a part.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Camas, you do not understand sarcasm!

I am well aware those are tasks. It was a response to Lord who listed CERT as a specialty. CERT status is ambiguous. It is one of those things that Eclipse refers to something like this: it is because CAP calls it, except when it is not, but is. Or something like that.

CERT is not referred in the actual ES regulations as a specialty. So it is a task, or CAP has not decided what role members with it are to have. But a SQTR can be pulled like other ES specialties with the difference that other specialties will produce a SQTR with a place to sign. A CERT SQTR does not show a place to sign. Just like the tasks I mentioned. If you click on them individually at the bottom where it has the following buttons:

Submit        Delete         Clear Selected        Resubmit SQTR        Print ICS 300 SQTR

When you click the last one, it will list it by itself with no space for a signature.

So yes, those are tasks, and I regard CERT as a task because if you print that task by itself the SQTR generated does not allow for signatures. Otherwise I have achieved another ES specialty!

[JeffDG]

Take a look at CAPR 60-3 2-3f:

The following are the approved emergency services specialty qualifications above the
GES level.

[GrimReaper]

Excerpt from CAP Knowledge Base:  Published 10/03/2012 06:43 AM   |    Updated 04/10/2014 07:57 AM     |    Answer ID: 2364

CERT certification does qualify members to wear the Emergency Services Patch if the member is also GES qualified and they are current and qualified in CERT, i.e. it is currently reflected on their 101 card as current. 

CAPR 35-6 Paragraph 3 states: "Requirements for Award of the CAP Emergency Services Patch. Current and qualified in accordance with CAPR 60-3, CAP Emergency Services Training and Operational Missions as a general emergency services member with one additional specialty qualification." CERT would be considered an additional specialty qualification.

References: 

CAPR 35-6 Aeronautical Ratings, Emergency Services Patch and Badges, and Ground Team Badges 17 Aug 2002

CAPR 60-3 CAP Emergency Services Training and Operational Missions 26 December 2012

[JeffDG]

CERT is listed in CAPR 60-3, 2-3f

As an approver for these, I pretty much treat that list as definitive.

[Storm Chaser]

Camas, you do not understand sarcasm!

I am well aware those are tasks. It was a response to Lord who listed CERT as a specialty. CERT status is ambiguous. It is one of those things that Eclipse refers to something like this: it is because CAP calls it, except when it is not, but is. Or something like that.

CERT is not referred in the actual ES regulations as a specialty. So it is a task, or CAP has not decided what role members with it are to have. But a SQTR can be pulled like other ES specialties with the difference that other specialties will produce a SQTR with a place to sign. A CERT SQTR does not show a place to sign. Just like the tasks I mentioned. If you click on them individually at the bottom where it has the following buttons:

Submit        Delete         Clear Selected        Resubmit SQTR        Print ICS 300 SQTR

When you click the last one, it will list it by itself with no space for a signature.

So yes, those are tasks, and I regard CERT as a task because if you print that task by itself the SQTR generated does not allow for signatures. Otherwise I have achieved another ES specialty!

CAPR 60-3, Para. 2-3f disagrees with you. Not only is CERT considered a qualification, Para. 1-17b(3) allows CAP to dispatch CERT teams.

[Eclipse]

allows CAP to dispatch CERT teams.

Yeah, apparently there's aircrew wings, too.

No doctrine, no rules.  Just "do it".  Nike should be a sponsor.

[JeffDG]

Camas, you do not understand sarcasm!

I am well aware those are tasks. It was a response to Lord who listed CERT as a specialty. CERT status is ambiguous. It is one of those things that Eclipse refers to something like this: it is because CAP calls it, except when it is not, but is. Or something like that.

CERT is not referred in the actual ES regulations as a specialty. So it is a task, or CAP has not decided what role members with it are to have. But a SQTR can be pulled like other ES specialties with the difference that other specialties will produce a SQTR with a place to sign. A CERT SQTR does not show a place to sign. Just like the tasks I mentioned. If you click on them individually at the bottom where it has the following buttons:

Submit        Delete         Clear Selected        Resubmit SQTR        Print ICS 300 SQTR

When you click the last one, it will list it by itself with no space for a signature.

So yes, those are tasks, and I regard CERT as a task because if you print that task by itself the SQTR generated does not allow for signatures. Otherwise I have achieved another ES specialty!

CAPR 60-3, Para. 2-3f disagrees with you. Not only is CERT considered a qualification, Para. 1-17b(3) allows CAP to dispatch CERT teams.

CERT has a "Note 4" in 2-3f, which says it doesn't exist as of the time of the regulation, but is planned.

[Camas]

Camas,you do not understand sarcasm!

You asked a question and I gave an answer. We're all here to help aren't we. And the bold type??  Grow up, junior!

[Eclipse]

CERT has a "Note 4" in 2-3f, which says it doesn't exist as of the time of the regulation, but is planned.

What a mess.

There is no reason that the regs need to be this convoluted and conflicted, except that
CAP has separate camps implementing things piecemeal instead of working together and doing
all the math, including "showing your work".

People here can find these inconsistencies and issues in minutes, yet the OPRs let them fester for years.

There's no timeline to publishing updates beyond someone regenerating a .pdf and pinging
an eServices alert, and the OPRs are now codified as having authority to correct errata.

CC's should not have to make judgement calls on nonsense like this.  So much wasted time.

[Storm Chaser]

Camas, you do not understand sarcasm!

I am well aware those are tasks. It was a response to Lord who listed CERT as a specialty. CERT status is ambiguous. It is one of those things that Eclipse refers to something like this: it is because CAP calls it, except when it is not, but is. Or something like that.

CERT is not referred in the actual ES regulations as a specialty. So it is a task, or CAP has not decided what role members with it are to have. But a SQTR can be pulled like other ES specialties with the difference that other specialties will produce a SQTR with a place to sign. A CERT SQTR does not show a place to sign. Just like the tasks I mentioned. If you click on them individually at the bottom where it has the following buttons:

Submit        Delete         Clear Selected        Resubmit SQTR        Print ICS 300 SQTR

When you click the last one, it will list it by itself with no space for a signature.

So yes, those are tasks, and I regard CERT as a task because if you print that task by itself the SQTR generated does not allow for signatures. Otherwise I have achieved another ES specialty!

CAPR 60-3, Para. 2-3f disagrees with you. Not only is CERT considered a qualification, Para. 1-17b(3) allows CAP to dispatch CERT teams.

CERT has a "Note 4" in 2-3f, which says it doesn't exist as of the time of the regulation, but is planned.

Obviously, the qualification exist and is available in Ops Quals. Note 4 states the following:

New training programs and levels in certain specialties are currently in development...

This was written in generic terms to cover multiple specialties. Is it a contradiction or mistake? Maybe. Or, it could refer to future levels (CERT3/2/1) or an in-house training program. The note, unfortunately, is not clear enough. That said, the OP asked about the ES Patch and the CERT qualification meets the criteria for that patch.

allows CAP to dispatch CERT teams.

Yeah, apparently there's aircrew wings, too.

No doctrine, no rules.  Just "do it".  Nike should be a sponsor.

Unlike the aircrew wings, there is a criteria to earn the CERT qualification and it can be recorded in Ops Quals and the CAPF 101 Card.

I agree that the way this qualification was implemented and the idea of fielding a CERT team in CAP were not be thought out through. Perhaps Note 4 refers to the expectation of the CERT qual being expanded in the future. There are also rumors of a DR qual currently in the works or a revision to the GTM SQTR that would include DR tasks. At this point, I'm not sure what a revision to CAPR 60-3 would look like or how the SQTRs are going to change in the future. But today, if a member's 101 Card says GES and CERT on it, then that member is entitled to the ES Patch.

[Eclipse]

if a member's 101 Card says GES and CERT on it, then that member is entitled to the ES Patch.

Can't argue it, but what's the point?

Congratulations!  You have taken an online test and completed training irrelevant to anything CAP does!

Here's NASCAR patch!

One of these days people are going to wake up and understand the counterproductive messages this kind of thing sends,
especially to cadets.

Poor little Pogo.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Camas, the OP asked a question. I answered with sarcasm.

You are the junior, as you do not have the knowledge or understanding to know the difference.

All of you arguing "it is a specialty."

Print the SQTR.

Now print other ES SQTRs.

You will see a big, big difference. On all SQTRs there is a space to sign mission participation. The CERT SQTR has no such lines. Why? It is not ready!

[jeders]

On all SQTRs there is a space to sign mission participation. The CERT SQTR has no such lines. Why? It is not ready!

Or because we don't do the training in house (usually) and rely on outside agencies to do it. Or because the standards for it come from FEMA and the training is done to those standards, not an irrelevant CAP standard. Regardless, CERT is listed in CAPR 60-3 para. 2-3(f), which means it qualifies for the ES Patch. The fact that there is an SQTR means that it is ready and has been implemented and Note 4 is null and void.

Luis, I don't know you or your position in CAP, but if you are denying the ES patch for people who have GES and CERT, then you are wrong.

As to Eclipse's point about counterproductive messages, I think that's spot on. Many years ago when the ES patch was introduced, I believe pilots, observers, and ground teams were the ONLY people that got a special qualification badge; so the ES patch was a way of recognizing mission managers and base staff who didn't have any other bling. Over time, however, more and more qualifications have been given badges and the need for the ES patch is less and less all the time. I think that it might be time to either eliminate it or refocus it to get people to go further, though eliminating it would be my choice.

[Storm Chaser]

There are other SQTRs besides CERT that don't have mission/exercise participation, such as ADIS and GIIEP. In the case of CERT, the training is conducted outside of CAP, but it's still recognized as a CAP qualification in CAPR 60-3. The CAP Knowledgebase also confirms this.

http://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2364/kw/cert

[Luis R. Ramos]

Storm, wrong example! Print the ADIS SQTR. It requires two supervisor signatures with two flights.

AFRCC SAR Mgmt Course is conducted, I thought, by the Air Force, no? So it is conducted by an outside agency and the SQTR still requires a signature!

So does the Inland SAR Course.

And both the AFRCC Mgmt Course and the Inland SAR Course are listed as ES Specialties. I have not taken either yet, so I ask, are they ES specialties? If not, then just because they are listed under ES specialties does not make everything under "ES specialty" an "ES specialty."

CERT is like Water Survival. Initially Water Survival was not an ES Specialty. Since 2012, curriculum  has been in development. now it is regarded. CERT is not very well defined yet.

[Luis R. Ramos]

By the way, it has been debated here again and again that Knowledge Base is not regulatory nor is staffed by those experts in those regulations, they only interpret them like we here at CAPTalk do. So it should not be regarded as "the ultimate word."

[Luis R. Ramos]

Since several in here feel so strongly that CERT is an ES specialty, I will submit my CERT training and request it. I do not consider the online FEMA CERT class equivalent to the CERT class given by the NYC OEM consisting of several months, but hey! It is a FEMA class!!!

Once I authorized the CERT specialty SQTR for a squadron member that is studying out of state. He had a CERT certificate from the school he was studying. Stating what they did. And I requested the ES patch for him.

I also denied the CERT specialty SQTR request from another squadron member who like me only took the FEMA online class. Did not submit the ES patch for this person, either.

But since so many here feel so strongly, from now on I will approve all CERT requests. <Adding the SARCASM flag, before anyone misunderstand this!>

The SQTR curriculum should be fully developed, and if any entry under ES Specialty taught by an outside agency requires a signature, all should.

[Eclipse]

^ This just shows you how ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS this CERT nonsense really is.

There's no definition, so whatever the clicker feels works, works.

The intention, likely, was for members to complete the typical 40-hour, community provided
in-residence class and whatever testing goes with it, but now CAP is going to let
people who clicked an online class with 1/2-attention to deploy as a CERTS team.

ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.

Ground Team Training?  All that equipment and like a year of missions and stuff before I can do anything?
Why bother?  I just got muh CERTS! 

No time for backup, shoulder roll out the door!

[lordmonar]

I would check with NHQ to see if the online only course counts at the CERT course.

I'm thinking....but I do not know for sure.....that the online course my only be part of the course.....with a hands course to add on.

I'm not CERT trained but several of my squadron mates are....and they all took week long training.

In fact the FEMA site even says

"Introduction to Community Emergency Response Teams," IS-317, is an independent study course that serves as an introduction to CERT for those wanting to complete training or as a refresher for current team members. It has six modules with topics that include an Introduction to CERT, Fire Safety, Hazardous Material and Terrorist Incidents, Disaster Medical Operations and Search and Rescue. It takes between six and eight hours to complete the course. Those who successfully finish it will receive a certificate of completion.

IS-317 can be taken by anyone interested in CERT. However, to become a CERT volunteer, one must complete the classroom training offered by a local government agency such as the emergency management agency, fire or police department. Contact your local emergency manager to learn about the local education and training opportunities available to you. Let this person know about your interest in taking CERT training.

http://www.fema.gov/community-emergency-response-teams/training-materials

So Luis....I agree that you should not be signing off on CERT training for those who only did the online course.

I would check with NHQ to be sure.

[JeffDG]

Storm, wrong example! Print the ADIS SQTR. It requires two supervisor signatures with two flights.

AFRCC SAR Mgmt Course is conducted, I thought, by the Air Force, no? So it is conducted by an outside agency and the SQTR still requires a signature!

So does the Inland SAR Course.

And both the AFRCC Mgmt Course and the Inland SAR Course are listed as ES Specialties. I have not taken either yet, so I ask, are they ES specialties? If not, then just because they are listed under ES specialties does not make everything under "ES specialty" an "ES specialty."

CERT is like Water Survival. Initially Water Survival was not an ES Specialty. Since 2012, curriculum  has been in development. now it is regarded. CERT is not very well defined yet.

Neither the Inland SAR course, nor the AFRCC course are ES specialties.

Here's the list where the regulation (60-3, 2-3f) says "The following are the approved emergency services specialty qualifications above the
GES level"

Aerial Digital Imaging System Operator (ADIS). See notes 2 and 3.
• Airborne Photographer (AP). See See notes 2 and 3.
• Air Operations Branch Director (AOBD).
• ARCHER Operator (ARCHOPR). See note 1.
• ARCHER Trac Technician (ARCHTRK). See note 1.
• ARCHER Ground Station Operator (ARCHGSO). See notes 1 and 4.
• ARCHER Field Spectrometer Operator (ARCHSPEC) See note 1.
• Communications Unit Leader (CUL) – Any Level. See note 4.
• Community Emergency Response Team (CERT). See note 4.
• Cost Unit Leader (FCUL). See note 4.
• Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM) – Any Level. See note 1.
• Finance/Administration Section Chief (FASC).
• Flight Line Marshaller (FLM).
• Flight Line Supervisor (FLS).
• Ground Branch Director (GBD).
• Ground Team Leader (GTL) – Any Level. See note 4.
• Ground Team Member (GTM) – Any Level. See note 4.
• Highbird Radio Operator (HRO). See note 4.
• Incident Commander (IC) – Any Level. See note 4.
• Liaison Officer (LO)
• Logistics Section Chief (LSC).
• Mission Chaplain (MC).
• Mission Information Technology (MIT). See note 4.
• Mission Observer (MO).
• Mission Radio Operator (MRO) – Any Level. See note 4 below.
• Mission Safety Officer (MSO).
• Mission Scanner (MS).
• Mission Staff Assistant (MSA).
• Mountain Flying Certification (MFC). See note 3.
• NOC Augmentee (NOCAUG). See note 1.
• Operations Section Chief (OSC).
• Planning Section Chief (PSC).
• Public Information Officer (PIO) – Any Level. See notes 4 and 5.
• Resources Unit Leader (RUL). See note 4.
• Search and Rescue/Disaster Relief Mission Pilot (MP).
• Situation Unit Leader (SUL). See note 4.
• Transport Mission Pilot (TMP).
• Unit Alert Officer (UAO)
• Urban Direction Finding Team (UDF). See note 4.
• Water Survival (WS). See note 3.
• Wing Alert Officer (WAO)

Note:  CERT is in there.

[Eclipse]

It also says "see note 4" which says it doesn't exist yet.

You have to read the whole reg, not cherry pick.

[jeders]

It also says "see note 4" which says it doesn't exist yet.

You have to read the whole reg, not cherry pick.

The reg which was written and published two years ago when a CERT SQTR did not exist. The fact that there is now a SQTR in eServies means that it does exist and note 4 no longer applies.

[JeffDG]

It also says "see note 4" which says it doesn't exist yet.

You have to read the whole reg, not cherry pick.

Also says "See note 4" for Incident Commander.

And the claim was that CERT was not identified by the regulation as a specialty qualification.  It is.  Specifically and in black-and-white.

[Eclipse]

Fine, then IC isn't either.

Right there in black and white.

What a mess.

[Storm Chaser]

Since several in here feel so strongly that CERT is an ES specialty, I will submit my CERT training and request it. I do not consider the online FEMA CERT class equivalent to the CERT class given by the NYC OEM consisting of several months, but hey! It is a FEMA class!!!

Once I authorized the CERT specialty SQTR for a squadron member that is studying out of state. He had a CERT certificate from the school he was studying. Stating what they did. And I requested the ES patch for him.

I also denied the CERT specialty SQTR request from another squadron member who like me only took the FEMA online class. Did not submit the ES patch for this person, either.

But since so many here feel so strongly, from now on I will approve all CERT requests. <Adding the SARCASM flag, before anyone misunderstand this!>

The SQTR curriculum should be fully developed, and if any entry under ES Specialty taught by an outside agency requires a signature, all should.

The online CERT course is a pre-requisite to CERT training and it doesn't count by itself. CERT certification requires classroom and hands-on training.

[Storm Chaser]

Storm, wrong example! Print the ADIS SQTR. It requires two supervisor signatures with two flights.

AFRCC SAR Mgmt Course is conducted, I thought, by the Air Force, no? So it is conducted by an outside agency and the SQTR still requires a signature!

So does the Inland SAR Course.

And both the AFRCC Mgmt Course and the Inland SAR Course are listed as ES Specialties. I have not taken either yet, so I ask, are they ES specialties? If not, then just because they are listed under ES specialties does not make everything under "ES specialty" an "ES specialty."

CERT is like Water Survival. Initially Water Survival was not an ES Specialty. Since 2012, curriculum  has been in development. now it is regarded. CERT is not very well defined yet.

The signature block on the SQTR is irrelevant. Point in case, AFRCC BISC and the Inland SAR Planning Course are courses not specialties and all they require for validation approval is a copy of the certificate. By your logic, qualification renewals require two exercise participation since the printed SQTRs have two signature block.

I suggest you contact your wing for clarification. As a fairly new unit commander, you should not be coming up with your own interpretation of a National program.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Storm, wrong example! Print the ADIS SQTR. It requires two supervisor signatures with two flights.

AFRCC SAR Mgmt Course is conducted, I thought, by the Air Force, no? So it is conducted by an outside agency and the SQTR still requires a signature!

So does the Inland SAR Course.

And both the AFRCC Mgmt Course and the Inland SAR Course are listed as ES Specialties. I have not taken either yet, so I ask, are they ES specialties? If not, then just because they are listed under ES specialties does not make everything under "ES specialty" an "ES specialty."

CERT is like Water Survival. Initially Water Survival was not an ES Specialty. Since 2012, curriculum  has been in development. now it is regarded. CERT is not very well defined yet.

The signature block on the SQTR is irrelevant. Point in case, AFRCC BISC and the Inland SAR Planning Course are courses not specialties and all they require for validation approval is a copy of the certificate. By your logic, qualification renewals require two exercise participation since the printed SQTRs have two signature block.

I suggest you contact your wing for clarification. As a fairly new unit commander, you should not be coming up with your own interpretation of a National program.

My GTM renewal required all the advanced tasks (none of the prep work), and 1 sortie, not two.

[Storm Chaser]

Storm, wrong example! Print the ADIS SQTR. It requires two supervisor signatures with two flights.

AFRCC SAR Mgmt Course is conducted, I thought, by the Air Force, no? So it is conducted by an outside agency and the SQTR still requires a signature!

So does the Inland SAR Course.

And both the AFRCC Mgmt Course and the Inland SAR Course are listed as ES Specialties. I have not taken either yet, so I ask, are they ES specialties? If not, then just because they are listed under ES specialties does not make everything under "ES specialty" an "ES specialty."

CERT is like Water Survival. Initially Water Survival was not an ES Specialty. Since 2012, curriculum  has been in development. now it is regarded. CERT is not very well defined yet.

The signature block on the SQTR is irrelevant. Point in case, AFRCC BISC and the Inland SAR Planning Course are courses not specialties and all they require for validation approval is a copy of the certificate. By your logic, qualification renewals require two exercise participation since the printed SQTRs have two signature block.

I suggest you contact your wing for clarification. As a fairly new unit commander, you should not be coming up with your own interpretation of a National program.

My GTM renewal required all the advanced tasks (none of the prep work), and 1 sortie, not two.

That's correct; that's all that's required for renewal. That said, when you print your GTM3 renewal SQTR (select the option at the bottom), the SQTR shows two signature blocks. That's what Capt Ramos was referring to when he mentioned the two mission participation for the ADIS SQTR.

[Майор Хаткевич]

At the bottom yes, but my line items only show:

Ground Team Member Level 3 - Exercise Participation
Exercise Participation-Ground Team Member #2

[GrimReaper]

This is the CERT program training.  A graduate is awarded a certificate and it should be uploaded to e-services


The CERT training for community groups is usually delivered in 2 1/2 hour sessions, one evening a week over a 7 week period. The training consists of the following:

Session I, DISASTER PREPAREDNESS: Addresses hazards to which people are vulnerable in their community. Materials cover actions that participants and their families take before, during and after a disaster. As the session progresses, the instructor begins to explore an expanded response role for civilians in that they should begin to consider themselves disaster workers. Since they will want to help their family members and neighbors, this training can help them operate in a safe and appropriate manner. The CERT concept and organization are discussed as well as applicable laws governing volunteers in that jurisdiction.
Session II, DISASTER FIRE SUPPRESSION: Briefly covers fire chemistry, hazardous materials, fire hazards and fire suppression strategies. However, the thrust of this session is the safe use of fire extinguishers, sizing up the situation, controlling utilities and extinguishing a small fire.
Session III, DISASTER MEDICAL OPERATIONS PART I: Participants practice diagnosing and treating airway obstruction, bleeding and shock by using simple triage and rapid treatment techniques.
Session IV, DISASTER MEDICAL OPERATIONS, PART II: Covers evaluating patients by doing a head to toe assessment, establishing a medical treatment area, performing basic first aid and practicing in a safe and sanitary manner.
Session V, LIGHT SEARCH AND RESCUE OPERATIONS: Participants learn about search and rescue planning, size-up, search techniques, rescue techniques and, most important, rescuer safety.
Session VI, DISASTER PSYCHOLOGY AND TEAM ORGANIZATION: Covers signs and symptoms that might be experienced by the disaster victim and worker. It addresses CERT organization and management principles and the need for documentation.
Session VII, COURSE REVIEW AND DISASTER SIMULATION: Participants review their answers from a take home examination. Finally, they practice the skills that they have learned during the previous six sessions in disaster activity.

During each session participants are required to bring safety equipment (gloves, goggles, mask) and disaster supplies (bandages, flashlight, dressings) which will be used during the session. By doing this for each session, participants are building a disaster response kit of items that they will need during a disaster.

[Eclipse]

LAME.

GTMs are already well trained over that nonsense.

CERT is designed and intended primarily for people to self-care and assist their neighbors, not as a deployable
for of already trained members.

Do FDs and LEAs take their already trained people and downgrade them to "CERT"?

Of course not.

[Storm Chaser]

At the bottom yes, but my line items only show:

Ground Team Member Level 3 - Exercise Participation
Exercise Participation-Ground Team Member #2

I understand and I'm not disagreeing. Only one exercise participation is required for renewals and there's only one entry on the Ops Quals SQTR. My comments regarding the signature blocks on the printed SQTR, as I mentioned before, were in response to another post.

[Storm Chaser]

LAME.

GTMs are already well trained over that nonsense.

CERT is designed and intended primarily for people to self-care and assist their neighbors, not as a deployable
for of already trained members.

Do FDs and LEAs take their already trained people and downgrade them to "CERT"?

Of course not.

GTMs are trained in GSAR, not DR ops. I think the intent on making CERT a CAP qual was (and I could be wrong) to fill that DR gap; to enable CAP to deploy 3-member CERTs to respond to disasters (hurricane, floods, tornados, etc.) while using an already established training program. Or, maybe the intent was to leverage those members who have already received CERT training. Either way, it's obvious that this didn't quite work as intended; at least not in most wings (if any).

I hear that NHQ has been working on a DR curriculum either as a separate specialty or as part of the GTM SQTR. There's also a revision to CAPR 60-3 in the works. Maybe this will be addressed soon. But until it is, each wing will have to decide how to best utilize the resources and training available to meet their needs. That includes the use of CERT teams, as that's permitted by current regulations.

[Eclipse]

CERT is not the answer to DR for CAP - we far exceed that training and proficiency.

CERT is basically "pick up stuff and move it", " report fires" and don't be a liability yourself.

CAP can do that with GTMs, a lot better as-is, and expecting a GTM to sit through another week's
worth of classes that basically rehash the GTM and other ES training isn't reasonable.  If the
differentials can be wrapped into GTM as a few more tasks, then whatever.

If people want to be on a CERT, they should just join their local CERT.

We'd be better off spending the time working on the top-down relationships at the 3/4 letter agency
level as well as getting local CC's to contact local EMAs then reinventing the wheel.

With that said, yes, the curriculum needs to be redone - we've been hearing about this for several
years.  The ES curriculum is the new 39-1.

[Alaric]

CERT is not the answer to DR for CAP - we far exceed that training and proficiency.

CERT is basically "pick up stuff and move it", " report fires" and don't be a liability yourself.

CAP can do that with GTMs, a lot better as-is, and expecting a GTM to sit through another week's
worth of classes that basically rehash the GTM and other ES training isn't reasonable.  If the
differentials can be wrapped into GTM as a few more tasks, then whatever.

If people want to be on a CERT, they should just join their local CERT.

We'd be better off spending the time working on the top-down relationships at the 3/4 letter agency
level as well as getting local CC's to contact local EMAs then reinventing the wheel.

With that said, yes, the curriculum needs to be redone - we've been hearing about this for several
years.  The ES curriculum is the new 39-1.

You do CERT a disservice, they may be "pick up and move it" where you are, but I have been a member of CERT teams in Baldwin County, AL; New Milford, CT, and Naperville, IL and at various times we have done a variety of activities including  POD, Sandbag filling, food distribution, light search (generally a line search), shelter staffing traffic control and crowd control.  So whereas you may think that our GTMs are at a much higher level than CERT, the varying emergency management agencies seem to disagree.  I would argue that CERT teams are much more useful in a disaster scenario and our ground teams much better in a SAR scenario.   Regardless of which you believe members of CERT are dedicated community volunteers and should not be derided.  YMMV

[Storm Chaser]

CERT is not the answer to DR for CAP - we far exceed that training and proficiency.

CERT is basically "pick up stuff and move it", " report fires" and don't be a liability yourself.

CAP can do that with GTMs, a lot better as-is, and expecting a GTM to sit through another week's
worth of classes that basically rehash the GTM and other ES training isn't reasonable.  If the
differentials can be wrapped into GTM as a few more tasks, then whatever.

If people want to be on a CERT, they should just join their local CERT.

We'd be better off spending the time working on the top-down relationships at the 3/4 letter agency
level as well as getting local CC's to contact local EMAs then reinventing the wheel.

With that said, yes, the curriculum needs to be redone - we've been hearing about this for several
years.  The ES curriculum is the new 39-1.

Have you submitted a proposal to NHQ on how to address this?

[Eclipse]

^ Yeah, I'll get right on that proposal.  Any suggestions on the font?

Alaric, don't get bunched - no one said CERT wasn't useful or important, but being "dedicated" at something
doesn't in and of itself make that thing "hard".

Sandbags, water-passing, PODS - a clipboard and a queue line, critical in an emergency, but hardly requiring
more then a cursory orientation.

[Alaric]

^ Yeah, I'll get right on that proposal.  Any suggestions on the font?

Alaric, don't get bunched - no one said CERT wasn't useful or important, but being "dedicated" at something
doesn't in and of itself make that thing "hard".

Sandbags, water-passing, PODS - a clipboard and a queue line, critical in an emergency, but hardly requiring
more then a cursory orientation.

Your derision is noted, by that measure MSA shouldn't be a qual either as keeping a log and escorting a dignitary "hardly requires more than a cursory orientation"  I also note that as usual you decided to cherry pick, as you did not mention in your brush off crowd or traffic control, or food distribution.

[Eclipse]

Your derision is noted, by that measure MSA shouldn't be a qual either as keeping a log and escorting a dignitary "hardly requires more than a cursory orientation"  I also note that as usual you decided to cherry pick, as you did not mention in your brush off crowd or traffic control, or food distribution.

I don't think MSA >should< be a qual.  It was a "made up thing" after 911 to try and get people who otherwise
couldn't be bothered up to that point to be involved in the mission base.

CAP doesn't do crowd "control", they observe and report, nor should they be doing "traffic control" - a lot of CCs feel, as I do, that these are
areas CAP should not be involved in, despite the allowances in the regs, and the seemingly endless number of air shows where
members skirt the regs every year doing "crowd control" and security.  How do you "control" someone yo have no authority over?
We've pointed out for years that when doing crash site surveillance, anyone so inclined could run right past a CAP person and
flip them off, and all the CAP guy can do is "report".

Unskilled members of the general public can park cars and watch an audience line, it doesn't need someone in a CAP uniform.

[Storm Chaser]

^ Yeah, I'll get right on that proposal.  Any suggestions on the font?

So you're not really interested in improving the program, just complaining about?

I get it. Fixing and improving things is much harder than criticizing them and those who are actually doing something about it.

[Eclipse]

^ Yeah, I'll get right on that proposal.  Any suggestions on the font?

So you're not interested in improving the program, just complaining about?

I get it. Fixing and improving things is much harder than criticizing them.

Yeah, OK.

I'll just pile the breath I've wasted talking directly to the national ops staffers over here any time you're ready to look at it.

Not interested, prefer things invented there.

Also, why would I "suggest" something that I think is a bad idea.  GTMS are already over-prepared to function as a CERT,
however I've already said several times that I don't think CAP should try and be in the "CERT" business.  DO we need a DR
doctrine?  Yes.  Not CERT.

Not that it makes any difference, but it was just suggested, publicly, above.  Guaranteed it was read by
at least 10 people in a position to implement it.

Done.

[Storm Chaser]

^ Didn't say that at all. However, unless you're willing to contribute to the solution, not just complain about it, there's not much to discuss.

Comment included in duplicate post below.

[Alaric]

Not that it makes any difference, but it was just suggested, publicly, above.  Guaranteed it was read by
at least 10 people in a position to implement it.

Done.

That's a cop out Eclipse, there's a formal process, posting something on a board isn't it.  Any more than posting about uniforms on CT is the way to get change implemented.

[Eclipse]

^ Didn't say that at all. However, unless you're willing to contribute to the solution, not just complain about it, there's not much to discuss.

BTDT deaf ears.

At some point even the wall gets annoyed.

[Storm Chaser]

^ Yeah, I'll get right on that proposal.  Any suggestions on the font?

So you're not interested in improving the program, just complaining about?

I get it. Fixing and improving things is much harder than criticizing them.

Yeah, OK.

I'll just pile the breath I've wasted talking directly to the national ops staffers over here any time you're ready to look at it.

Not interested, prefer things invented there.

Didn't say that at all. However, unless you're willing to contribute to the solution, not just complain about it, there's not much to discuss.

Also, why would I "suggest" something that I think is a bad idea.  GTMS are already over-prepared to function as a CERT,
however I've already said several times that I don't think CAP should try and be in the "CERT" business.  DO we need a DR
doctrine?  Yes.  Not CERT.

Again, no one said it had to be CERT. I agree with some/many or your comments. But sometimes it feels that you're not open to dialog because your opinions are better than everyone else's. There's more than one way to skin a cat, you know.

Not that it makes any difference, but it was just suggested, publicly, above.  Guaranteed it was read by at least 10 people in a position to implement it.

Done.

Again, if you're referring to your posts in CAP Talk, that's hardly the appropriate forum. From your own words, a formal proposal was never submitted through the appropriate channels. If you've had informal conversations about this, I don't think that would qualify either although it's certainly a start.

[JeffDG]

^ Yeah, I'll get right on that proposal.  Any suggestions on the font?

Alaric, don't get bunched - no one said CERT wasn't useful or important, but being "dedicated" at something
doesn't in and of itself make that thing "hard".

Sandbags, water-passing, PODS - a clipboard and a queue line, critical in an emergency, but hardly requiring
more then a cursory orientation.

Yet you have insisted, multiple times, that because CAP doesn't have a "national standard training program" for these items, we're not qualified to assist with these.

Which is it?  Is it so easy that anyone with a 5 minute orientation can do it?  Or is it such a minefield of potential liability that CAP should stay 500 miles away from any such activity until we develop a fully-developed training program for it?

You can't suck and blow at the same time, hard as you try.

[JeffDG]

^ Yeah, I'll get right on that proposal.  Any suggestions on the font?

So you're not really interested in improving the program, just complaining about?

I get it. Fixing and improving things is much harder than criticizing them and those who are actually doing something about it.

Yeah...pretty much.  "The CAP can't do anything right, and shouldn't even try." mantra gets a bit tiresome to hear after a while.

[Eclipse]

^ Yeah, I'll get right on that proposal.  Any suggestions on the font?

Alaric, don't get bunched - no one said CERT wasn't useful or important, but being "dedicated" at something
doesn't in and of itself make that thing "hard".

Sandbags, water-passing, PODS - a clipboard and a queue line, critical in an emergency, but hardly requiring
more then a cursory orientation.

Yet you have insisted, multiple times, that because CAP doesn't have a "national standard training program" for these items, we're not qualified to assist with these.

Which is it?  Is it so easy that anyone with a 5 minute orientation can do it?  Or is it such a minefield of potential liability that CAP should stay 500 miles away from any such activity until we develop a fully-developed training program for it?

You can't suck and blow at the same time, hard as you try.

Actually it's both, especially when you're talking about cadets.  That's what a "doctrine" >is< vs, this piecemeal nonsense
we have today.  You're trained to do "x" and you only do "x" and the people who call you know what the "x" is,
and barring Katrina or Sandy where you a single resource on a mountain, you're not even asked about "y". CAP
members are so desperate to get into the game that they just want the phone to ring and don't care who is calling or what for.

CAP is a national, professionalized ES response organization, not vigilantes that run out the door with
whacker lights at the first crack of thunder.

[Eclipse]

^ Yeah, I'll get right on that proposal.  Any suggestions on the font?

So you're not really interested in improving the program, just complaining about?

I get it. Fixing and improving things is much harder than criticizing them and those who are actually doing something about it.

Yeah...pretty much.  "The CAP can't do anything right, and shouldn't even try." mantra gets a bit tiresome to hear after a while.

That's a huge steaming pile.

I have literally had these direct, written and phone conversations all the way up the OPS chain, including CAP-USAF people,
wing CCs, NESA staffers, the Nat DO, the works.  All the people who can make whatever they >want< to happen, happen.

Deaf ears, apathy, not invented here.

Don't like my argument? So be it, difference of opinion, but lay this "what have you done about it stuff" somewhere it applies.
I've tried to do plenty.  No one cared, or was interested.  The apathy was palpable, in some cases half the conversation
was explaining why CAP should care to start with.

The simple fact that we've been having these same conversations both here and in the wet world for the last 10 years is proof of that.
The decade-long "re-work" of the ES curriculum is more proof.  In an organization where it takes years to correct TYPOS, don't hold your breath
on anything else.

The recent ARC MOU is even more - says nothing, does nothing by get a press release and "encourage contact".

Status quo.

[JeffDG]

I get it.  You think everything must be mandated by NHQ.  As such, it's a huge deal to get the NHQ folks to change things.

On the other hand, there are people that think that local innovation is a good thing.  As such, it's much easier to test out new doctrine and skills with much fewer 'crats getting in the way, and at far less risk when things don't go perfectly.  Different subordinate organizations can take different approaches to problems, and as a result, come up with different solutions that can be compared and contrasted.

You've admitted your way doesn't work, yet you insist that it's the only way.  Like I said, gets tiresome after a while.

[Eclipse]

You've admitted your way doesn't work, yet you insist that it's the only way.  Like I said, gets tiresome after a while.

You know what else gets "tiresome"? The abdication of responsibility by leadership and the membership just putting up their
hands and saying "whatever"...

Homegrown "solutions" just cause constant issues whenever there's a disagreement regarding the direction.

You might like using green Post-It's for GT and Blue for Aircrew.  I think Post-It's should all be yellow.

No one is right, no one is wrong, the next CC probably doesn't understand the conversation, so we just avoid working together.
That pretty much sums up ES in CAP right now, especially between wings and regions.

CAP-USAF has been pushing this inter-wing "cooperation" lately, fine, few wings can respond to a major event without
help, instead of being able to show up day-of and getting to work, it takes 6 months to plan because no one on the call
learned to do things the same way.

3 are grizzled and have had enough.

2 have "heard of ES and are really excited about the idea".

4 Are from 3 different wings, all "pioneering a new mission system they would love to try".

Been there done that, it's absolutely ridiculous for a national organization with federal funding and a
supposed life and property mandate.  There's a reason that fire training is nationally standardized.

The other thing is the number of times the same 10 questions keep coming up and NHQ refuses to
answer them definitively either because someone will be sad or because no one wants to be the bad guy.

What counts for First Aid and does it have to be renewed?  What are GES members really allowed to do?
What's the definition of DR?  How about the whole "what can a GTM1 vs. 3 do?"
What is the ES mission?  Who are the customers?   etc., etc. on infinitum.

This CERT business.

Asked directly, in writing, on phone of the OPRs, commanders and staff who are in charge of these decisions.  No definitive answers.

Simple questions which keep coming up, seem like baseline issues, and flabbergast new members who
get stuck between CC's who don't know and CCs who don't care.

People say "Who cares? We're getting the mission done."  Firstly, that's debatable - the occasional
anecdotal or circumstantial win doesn't indicate systematic success, and CAP certainly isn't living up
to the potential of the expectations the appropriations present.  For every wing with even a marginal
ES program, there is at least one essentially not involved in ES, or incapable of mounting a reasonable
response.  Yes, I know this for a fact.  I realize that a lot of people live in a local bubble and that's their
perception, but if my involvement on CT has afforded me anything, it's contact on a national scale. So
before you say "my wing is different" consider that.

It's important because it makes us look like a bunch of yahoos who just have no clue and always do
things through the path of least resistance, you know, like just making things up locally instead of pressing the leadership for standards.

Consistently and thoroughly trained commanders and staff can work with less stringent standards
because they have a base framework from which to form their ideas and make their decisions.

Poorly / untrained or inconsistently trained commanders need rigid standards in order to be able
to have a foundation to stand on while they figure out which form goes where and who is supposed to
do what.

For FSM's sake, CAP can't even decide what kind of hat to wear.

[rustyjeeper]

I would check with NHQ to see if the online only course counts at the CERT course.

I'm thinking....but I do not know for sure.....that the online course my only be part of the course.....with a hands course to add on.

I'm not CERT trained but several of my squadron mates are....and they all took week long training.

In fact the FEMA site even says

"Introduction to Community Emergency Response Teams," IS-317, is an independent study course that serves as an introduction to CERT for those wanting to complete training or as a refresher for current team members. It has six modules with topics that include an Introduction to CERT, Fire Safety, Hazardous Material and Terrorist Incidents, Disaster Medical Operations and Search and Rescue. It takes between six and eight hours to complete the course. Those who successfully finish it will receive a certificate of completion.

IS-317 can be taken by anyone interested in CERT. However, to become a CERT volunteer, one must complete the classroom training offered by a local government agency such as the emergency management agency, fire or police department. Contact your local emergency manager to learn about the local education and training opportunities available to you. Let this person know about your interest in taking CERT training.

http://www.fema.gov/community-emergency-response-teams/training-materials

So Luis....I agree that you should not be signing off on CERT training for those who only did the online course.

I would check with NHQ to be sure.

As a CERT instructor I would state that to the best of my knowledge/
online CERT courses are not available, Yes the class material is there but you get no "credit for learning it outside of a class"
I had to attend an in person train the trainer class.
And I did do a training module online but to become an instructor-- I still had to attend in person.
At that time I was an active CAP member, a GTL, GBD, and MSO so I was pretty up on the CAP side of things

[rustyjeeper]

CERT is not the answer to DR for CAP - we far exceed that training and proficiency.

I agree CAP does exceed that training and I say so as a CERT instructor and former CAP member.

CERT is basically "pick up stuff and move it", " report fires" and don't be a liability yourself.
DISAGREE

CAP can do that with GTMs, a lot better as-is, and expecting a GTM to sit through another week's
worth of classes that basically rehash the GTM and other ES training isn't reasonable.  If the
differentials can be wrapped into GTM as a few more tasks, then whatever.
Here you need to realize CERT is a known sellable thing to Emergency Management-- it is a basic level of competency all know..... If CAP adopted this and then sold itself BEYOND it would only improve CAP's recognition and ES program

If people want to be on a CERT, they should just join their local CERT.

We'd be better off spending the time working on the top-down relationships at the 3/4 letter agency
level as well as getting local CC's to conact local EMAs then reinventing the wheel.
why not use CERT to sell CAP? ?FEMA has marketed the product to everyone..... if CAP taught CERT think of the recruiting opportunities.

With that said, yes, the curriculum needs to be redone - we've been hearing about this for several
years.  The ES curriculum is the new 39-1.

[Eclipse]

CAP isn't in the business of training non-members, by design and per the National General Counsel
BTDT official request, answer is "no" due to liability reasons.

CAP exceeds CERT, so we should sell that.  If that means translating CAP training to CERT, great,
but beyond that, if we exceed the capability, we don't need CERT.

[rustyjeeper]

CAP isn't in the business of training non-members, by design and per the National General Counsel
BTDT official request, answer is "no" due to liability reasons.

CAP exceeds CERT, so we should sell that.  If that means translating CAP training to CERT, great,
but beyond that, if we exceed the capability, we don't need CERT.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAP isn't in the business of training non menbers by design---- DISAGREED. Is AE not a congressionally chartered mission of CAP? Do we not educate the general public to an extent at times???   We CAP also  has an ES mission- one which needs some help.  IMO education and training is a good way to expose yourself to a great many people and promote both CAP and CERT. Possibly, as you say-  the legal beagles already shut that down as per usual for "liability" reasons.
YES cap does exceed CERT.  Unfortunately CAP does such a p*ss poor job of selling itself it is unknown and virtually unsellable. CERT opens the doors that otherwise are closed.

I don't really care where CAP goes now-I am done.  It cant sink much lower than it has and if people refuse to change how they think it will soon become a defunct organization if people don't change how they think.

[Eclipse]

CAP isn't in the business of training non-members, by design and per the National General Counsel
BTDT official request, answer is "no" due to liability reasons.

CAP exceeds CERT, so we should sell that.  If that means translating CAP training to CERT, great,
but beyond that, if we exceed the capability, we don't need CERT.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAP isn't in the business of training non members by design---- DISAGREED.

Well that's very nice, we all have opinions, however in this case I would imagine the National DO and the National JA's decisions
and interpretations will hold more weight.

How AE is relevent to this, I don't know, but regardless, we don't provide "training" in AE to non-members, either so there you are.

[rustyjeeper]

CAP isn't in the business of training non-members, by design and per the National General Counsel
BTDT official request, answer is "no" due to liability reasons.

CAP exceeds CERT, so we should sell that.  If that means translating CAP training to CERT, great,
but beyond that, if we exceed the capability, we don't need CERT.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAP isn't in the business of training non members by design---- DISAGREED.

Well that's very nice, we all have opinions, however in this case I would imagine the National DO and the National JA's decisions
and interpretations will hold more weight.

How AE is relevent to this, I don't know, but regardless, we don't provide "training" in AE to non-members, either so there you are.

Training and Education are one and the same thing, just different words. And as far as the DO and JA's decisions go-- well they are what they are and so long as they are the one's making the decisions things are what they are. CAP is just not relevant anymore and is fast going the way of the dinosaur. As drones take over there will be less use for the aerial photo people and where does that leave things??
Maybe the organization should take a long hard look at itself and its sustainability and reliability before it's too late and start to think outside the box a bit..... 
note: I said maybe.

[Luis R. Ramos]

What is your profession that you can say that "training and education are the same thing?" Are you an educator?

They are not.

Training is preparing one person for a job. The skills needed to perform a job. Use a calculator. Serve a meal.

Education is preparing one person with the ability to reason, to read, to acquire those skills on his own.

[Eclipse]

Training and Education are one and the same thing, just different words.

No, they are not.

AE is a good example.

CAP's stated mission is to advocate for, and educate the general public about, general aviation.
Being "educated" about aviation does not make you a pilot.

"Training" is the learning, and then demonstration to a standard, of specific task(s) towards a specific goal.
"Education" is general understanding of a given area or topic.

You can be "educated about ES", but you can't be "trained in ES", because the latter statement
is functionally meaningless given the broad nature of the topic.

CAP is just not relevant anymore and is fast going the way of the dinosaur. As drones take over there will be less use for the aerial photo people and where does that leave things??
Maybe the organization should take a long hard look at itself and its sustainability and reliability before it's too late and start to think outside the box a bit..... 

This is sadly and increasingly true, unfortunately to think outside a box, you have to recognize there >is< a box.

(Luis beat me to it above while I was typing...)