Mission Base Staff Training

[ammotrucker]

What do you think. 
How does a Wing justify placing a person in a position of overseeing the implementation of a Mission Base Staff training who is not qualified in most of the positions.  Tjis position is being required to come up with a new MBS courses with?

[floridacyclist]

It wouldn't be the first time I've seen that happen and it was pretty disastrous then too. When your training supervisor has no clue as to what you are doing, it makes it pretty difficult to get approval for anything.

[RiverAux]

Depends on whether you're talking about being a course director for a school or actually being one of the instructors.  I think just about anyone that is generally competent could organize the training.

Don't know why anyone would really need to come up with a new course.  Basically all the materials you need are available for download from national.   Would probably need to come up with your exercises/tabletops though. 

[ammotrucker]

Depends on whether you're talking about being a course director for a school or actually being one of the instructors.  I think just about anyone that is generally competent could organize the training.

Don't know why anyone would really need to come up with a new course.  Basically all the materials you need are available for download from national.   Would probably need to come up with your exercises/tabletops though. 

This is a Wing Deputy Director of Mission Base Staff Training.

I understand that some people are good at teaching.  Regardless of the courses.  But, this position is for coming up with a more uniformed way of dealing with each of the positions of the ICS Base mission staff.  Something that the Wing whats as there own.

I also, beleive that if the person that is taking this position is an educator that is fine.  But, if said member is not even qualified as IC how do you except that member to come up with the training materials in course form.for each position that would be relevent to real world.

[IceNine]

The few times I have seen this done have been either a Complete failure or an absolute success.

The idea is that you regardless of CAP Qualification the person in charge will be an excellent coordinator.  They can then use that specific trait to coordinate the efforts of the best of the best in the wing to create training plans. 

I don't care how good, well trained, and qualified you are there is no person that can design the perfect training program for every specality.

[RiverAux]

The best ICs I know would be a dismal failure at teaching a formal course. 

Obviously you want someone experienced in CAP ES operations putting the course together, but I don't think they need to be an IC.  In fact, given the shift that is going on in mission base staff training anyway, many ICs probably are not all that familiar with what we want taught to our folks today anyway. 

[Short Field]

The move from paper/whiteboard/charts to IMU has been a steep learning curve for many Mission Base personnel.

On the flip side, there is a big risk that we can lose the experience these people bring to the mission and have them replaced by people who think being qualified to support a mission is just knowing how to run the IMU.  (Mumbling to self for the 10,000th time, "The IMU is just a TOOL - like a pencil only you can't see your eraser marks")

[wingnut]

You Know, many years ago I was in a class at Lockheed after being hired to work on the Space Shuttle, and Lockheed had Hired these Professional teachers who were teaching us to be "Certified in  Soldering"
Now, here I was had almost 3 years in Electronics and many years as a Field tech having this idiot make me solder on a board so they could give me a certificate?? so I passed and I found that over half of the technicians on the launch pad could not tell you the difference petween an amp and a 1,000ma.  The point is we had to create our own private method to keep the idiots away from the critical systems because they may have had the 'Certificate", but it took four of them to change the Light Bulb.

Ok well you ask and what does this have to do with anything.

Have an IC throw a temper tantrum because he is not a pilot and he wants you to fly in IMC looking for a ELT going off in downtown Chicago. . .  HELLO is anyone home, lets try to train the Pilots who have lost there medicals yet have the flight time and have flown Missions at 500 feet.

Training is one thing but a trained IC must have been a fully qualified Mission Pilot, maybe a high time Observer, but I think all ICs should at least be a Mission Pilot, minimum qualification.

[IceNine]

By trying to require MP you are eliminating 90% or more of our members from ever being an IC.  Just because I am not a Pilot in no way disqualifies me from being an IC.  It simply means that I need to buddy with someone who is well versed in the ways of the wings.  There is good reason that we have AOBD's and that is to advise IC's. 

And quite frankly the insinuation that you have to be a pilot to be an incident manager offends my delicate nasal passages.

[RiverAux]

Former pilot/Current IC -- "GTL, why is it taking you so long to get to the target?  The plane has been circling over it almost 30 minutes and the guys are getting tired!!"

GTL -- "Sir, you know those sort of crinkly spots on the map?  Those are hills and it takes a bit longer to climb up them than to fly around over them..."

[isuhawkeye]

Training is one thing but a trained IC must have been a fully qualified Mission Pilot, maybe a high time Observer, but I think all ICs should at least be a Mission Pilot, minimum qualification.

I take offense to this statement. 

Most pilots have 0.00 desire to be managers, an when they do they cant get their head our of the clouds. 

I was at the State EOC and CAP was requested to conduct damage assessment.  The agency representative was handed a standard red cross windshield evaluation form.  The CAP rep stated.  "This is great, but I dont know how we are going to get this kind of detail from the aircraft"

An IC needs to be a well rounded manager with a general experience base, and understanding of multiple aspects of our program. 

It is certainly not unreasonable for an IC of any back ground to ask a resource to complete an assignment.  If that resource feels that it is unsafe to do so, they should bring up their concerns.

Ill climb off my soap box now

[Short Field]

[Most pilots have 0.00 desire to be managers, an when they do they cant get their head our of the clouds. 

This statement is just as bad as Wingnut's statement that ICs must be MPs or high time MOs. 

[An IC needs to be a well rounded manager with a general experience base, and understanding of multiple aspects of our program. 

It is certainly not unreasonable for an IC of any back ground to ask a resource to complete an assignment.  If that resource feels that it is unsafe to do so, they should bring up their concerns.

Well said.   

[wingnut]

I don't mean to be insulting or demeaning to anyone doing ES work, but I guess the best analogy would say does  it makes sense to have an EMT run a fire fighting exercise, or a police radio dispature run a crime scene.

There is some real disconnect among  the pilots who are having a non Aviator run a search and rescue operation. Not sounding disrespectful, but thats the real world. No public agency in any State or local unit is going to let that happen. A pilot should be running Air Operations, the Air Force would not even think about having a maintenance officer run a flight operation.
Sorry But that is one of the Biggest FUBARS.
If you look at the progression to being an IC you must be either a Pilot or and Observer anyway (I might be wrong)

[RiverAux]

There isn't really all that much you need to know about flyijng to be a CAP IC.  Its not like its rocket science to understand the influence of weather, terrain, flight hazards, etc. and to make sure you don't put two planes in the same grid. 

Operating a base staff is all about organization and strategy, flying is a tactical application. 

[isuhawkeye]

wingnut,

You are incorrect.  If you come up the ground side you only have to have been a scanner by the time you become an IC. 

The same is true in reverse.  If you are qualifying based upon an aviation oriented credential you must have been UDF, or GTM qualified.

Now heres the deal.  IC's all over the world manage operations outside their specialty. 

*fire chief's IC hazmat scenes even though they may have no experience
*Sheriff's officers IC missing persons searches even though they may have little experience in the subject matter.


The short answer is that under the ICS system the First arriving unit Establishes the command (IC) If thats an ambulance at a fire, a police car at a medical call, or a fire engine at a riot.  they set up the system.  that system works.  IC is transfered as resources and specialties dictate.  If the incident gets large enough you get the Unified command, which means lots of people with lots of backgrounds helping to make decisions.

Now certainly an air branch director should be an aircrew.  That just makes sense, but when you get to overall mission management (especially large scale) your specific back ground gives way to the skills and abilities needed to manage people and incidents not your ability to file a flight plan, or do a craping line search.

My $.02

I think Ill stop reading this thread now

[Short Field]

A pilot should be running Air Operations, the Air Force would not even think about having a maintenance officer run a flight operation. 

You are right that they don't use maintenance officers to run flight operations.  But the USAF and USN do allow navigators/EWOs/CSOs to command flying squadrons.  The USN normally rotates command between pilots and back-seaters.  It is tighter in the USAF but offically there are 90 squadron commander and deputy wing commander positions and about 60 operations officers slots available for navigators/EWOs/CSOs.  (source:  Aug 2007 Air Force Magazine)   It started back in 1975 when CINCSAC selected Col Eugene D. Scott as commander of the 47th Air Division.  Col Scott was the first navigator to assume command of an Air Force combat flying organization.   (source:  Air University Review, Jan-Feb 1978)

To become an IC, you have to have been qualified as a MS.  That is the only flying requirement.  There are also a few MPs who agree that the most experienced person in the aircraft should be the Mission Commander.  This has the MP deferring to the MO in all but actually flying the aircraft.

[jeders]

Training is one thing but a trained IC must have been a fully qualified Mission Pilot, maybe a high time Observer, but I think all ICs should at least be a Mission Pilot, minimum qualification.

Well..., let's just take this and flip it around. Let's say we do have an IC who has spent all of his time on the air side of the house except for a couple of weekends to get his UDF qual. Do you think that this IC is going to be as capable to handle an incidient that is primarily ground based? I'll admit that ground ops are considerably less involved than air ops, but as long as the aircrew has a good qualified pilot, then air ops is again pretty simple.

Having ICs from both ground and air ops side makes sense and is just fine, considering that we operate on both the ground and in the air.

[ZigZag911]

In the interests of full disclosure, I am a non-pilot IC.

In more than 30 years in CAP, I spent more time doing communications than anyhing else.....which gave me a valuable window into the mision management side since my cadet days.

About 20 years ago I qualified as observer, something I had long wanted to do. Enjoyed it a lot, stayed involved in comm.

Ten yeas ago I trained in UDF, lots of fun! specially wandering airport ramps at 3 AM! By this time I was training CULs for the wing!

About four or five years ago I qualified as IC3....here is my take on the situation: an IC is a generalist, which is probably why the IC runs a general staff (under the same principle USAF/Army/Marine flag officers are "general" officers, rather than specialists in any one field....the responsibility at this level is for the 'big picture'....for the safety of personnel, the preservation of equipment, and the successful completion of the mission.

It takes a team to carry out an ES mission, whether it's SAR, DR, CD or HLS.

[jeders]

About four or five years ago I qualified as IC3....here is my take on the situation: an IC is a generalist, which is probably why the IC runs a general staff (under the same principle USAF/Army/Marine flag officers are "general" officers, rather than specialists in any one field....the responsibility at this level is for the 'big picture'....for the safety of personnel, the preservation of equipment, and the successful completion of the mission.

It takes a team to carry out an ES mission, whether it's SAR, DR, CD or HLS.

Well said. That's why we have an AOBD and a GBD, so that the IC can do the big picture stuff and the branch directors can handle the specifics of their respective branch.

[Hoser]

Sure the IC's is the one who gets pinched if and when things go 10-5  S^&**y but in all reality the IC's job is to insure that the command and general staff folks have all the resources needed to do their jobs effectively and the people under them have the same. There is a reason for instance that the Safety Officer can overrule ANYONE. The IC doesn't really need expertise in anything to be effective, he/she just needs to know what questions to ask of who at the right time and understand the ramifications of what they are being told by their staff people. Basically they just need to trust their staff. Unfortunately the biggest problem is having enough capable staff people. Yes, this is a gross oversimplification, but my experience has shown it to be workable.

Hoser