An updated version of the Public Affairs Officer Track Guide (CAPP 201) was released on 25 July.
Things I noticed right away:
Required / Recommended reading list has been changed significantly.
Tech Rating now requires three FEMA Independent Study courses to be completed:
1. IS-29, Public Information Officer Awareness (2.5 hours)
2. IS-42, Social Media in Emergency Management (3.0 hours)
3. IS-242, Effective Communication (8.0 hours)
More focus on social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
"Give a 15-20 minute presentation to unit members regarding CAP's Social Media policy (reference CAPR 1-2, CAPR 1-3, CAPR 111-1, and CAPR 190-1, paragraph 11)."
Time required on assignment shortened from a year to six months.
PAO's must be GES and BCUT qualified (even though BCUT is depreciated and has been replaced by ICUT for a while now).
Link to the new CAPP 201: http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/P201_E863B3730B059.pdf (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/P201_E863B3730B059.pdf)
The most thankless position in CAP...
Quote from: AirAux on July 29, 2014, 08:17:53 PM
The most thankless position in CAP...
Concur on being thankless, however, it's one of the most important roles.
We've had a bit of a debate in a Facebook group regarding the new track revisions. For me, I'm fairly disappointed in the revisions. NHQ continues to integrate PIO training and requirements into the PAO track and I just don't think it's a good idea. It throws up additional roadblocks to having PAOs progress in the track, which is already one of the longest and most requirement-filled tracks there is. But, as a wing-level PAO, I am more disappointed by the lack of vetting and input from the field. As an example, Cadet Programs has, in general, been doing a good job of getting field input before making major revisions (the last 52-16 as an exception). I don't understand why NHQ wouldn't take field input before rolling in some fairly significant changes for the PAO track. It's not like the world was on fire waiting for it.
The most demanding changes come in the Senior and Master level. They require new in-residence PIO courses. However, depending on your state, those in-residence courses may not be offered. G-290 is more common, but G-291 is a very hit and miss course.
But fundamentally it continues to push PIO and PAO together, and they are different jobs. The current NHQ argument is that we need more PIOs. By integrating PIO training into the PAO specialty track we will potentially create more people interested in being PIOs. Unfortunately I believe we will simply drive more people away from progressing in the PAO track, because while they are willing to write human interest stories and post photos, they have zero interest in being a PIO.
PA is a tough gig, no doubt about it. It takes a specific type of person who likes to write, likes to speak in public, and tell a story (and do all of those well). The track certainly raises the bar on PAOs, but whether that will actually create the hoped for outcomes is debatable.
Sorry....but how is PIO and PAO different jobs?
Yes I know.....PIO is and ES specialty....and PAO is a PD specialty......but fundamentally are they not the same?
If the press showed up at your squadron's door step wanting a quote.....It is to the PAO or the Commander to whom I would send them....as you guys....just like at the mission base are the only ones authorized to issue statements.
Also....we need to get more squadron staff officers out into the field supporting our ES mission.
And bottom lines is.......if all they are interested in being is writing human interest stories and sending out Public Service Announcements....then they should just stay technicians.
If you want to be a MASTER PAO....then you need to master all the skills that a CAP PAO would be called on to do....including ES PIO duties.
Sorry for the rant.
PAO is about marketing, recruiting, human interest stories, etc... If you do a press interview it will be one you set up in advance with lots if lead time.
PIO is about controlling the flow of information during an emergent situation. It is press conferences, tight deadlines, and putting out fires constantly. Good PIOs almost always make good PAOs, the opposite is definitely not true.
You're right that at the Master level perhaps there is some value, but pushing it farther and farther down is self- defeating.
And the main issue was a) the lack if field input for a non- emergency change and b) an apparent detachment from reality by NHQ on how easy it is to acquire the training they now demand.
I don't know every track, but is there another track where a master candidate could have to spend upwards of $1,000 in travel costs to knock off training requirements the person will never use (unless they're a rated PIO)?
We need more PIOs, this is true. Whether NHQ's approach is the best I'm skeptical of. It's certainly the easiest to implement, but I doubt it will be effective. Handing down new requirements by fiat doesn't correlate into compliance in a volunteer organization. People will simply vote with their feet and choose other tracks.
Quote from: MajorM on July 30, 2014, 11:52:56 AM
I don't know every track, but is there another track where a master candidate could have to spend upwards of $1,000 in travel costs to knock off training requirements the person will never use (unless they're a rated PIO)?
I would say the trend towards more intensive coursework for Master level people is increasing.
IG has a mandatory attendance at the National IG College. ES requires in residence training (just did the Inland SAR Course myself). I don't necessarily have a problem with these. There's no shame in being "Senior" rated, and having requirements that you do in-residence classes for Master shows a level of dedication that sets you apart.
ES integration also occurs in the ES (obviously) and Communications tracks. You need to be a CUL to get Master rated in Communications. The PA regulation makes having a PIO mandatory on missions, so I don't think it's out of step for the PA folks to step up and encourage their PAOs to become PIOs as well.
Quote from: JeffDG on July 30, 2014, 12:36:55 PM
ES integration also occurs in the ES (obviously) and Communications tracks. You need to be a CUL to get Master rated in Communications. The PA regulation makes having a PIO mandatory on missions, so I don't think it's out of step for the PA folks to step up and encourage their PAOs to become PIOs as well.
I think there should be as well. If you are going to hold a master rating, you should know that job in all aspects of CAP, including ES. Communications should include CUL, Finance should include FASC, Safety should include mission safety officer, chaplain and mission chaplain, etc. Obviously not all tracks include a direct ES component, but for those that do, they should be qualified as such.
Quote from: LSThiker on July 30, 2014, 01:07:28 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on July 30, 2014, 12:36:55 PM
ES integration also occurs in the ES (obviously) and Communications tracks. You need to be a CUL to get Master rated in Communications. The PA regulation makes having a PIO mandatory on missions, so I don't think it's out of step for the PA folks to step up and encourage their PAOs to become PIOs as well.
I think there should be as well. If you are going to hold a master rating, you should know that job in all aspects of CAP, including ES. Communications should include CUL, Finance should include FASC, Safety should include mission safety officer, chaplain and mission chaplain, etc. Obviously not all tracks include a direct ES component, but for those that do, they should be qualified as such.
I don't think finance has it (concur it may be a good idea), but Logistics does (requires LSC qual)
Quote from: JeffDG on July 30, 2014, 01:24:28 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on July 30, 2014, 01:07:28 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on July 30, 2014, 12:36:55 PM
ES integration also occurs in the ES (obviously) and Communications tracks. You need to be a CUL to get Master rated in Communications. The PA regulation makes having a PIO mandatory on missions, so I don't think it's out of step for the PA folks to step up and encourage their PAOs to become PIOs as well.
I think there should be as well. If you are going to hold a master rating, you should know that job in all aspects of CAP, including ES. Communications should include CUL, Finance should include FASC, Safety should include mission safety officer, chaplain and mission chaplain, etc. Obviously not all tracks include a direct ES component, but for those that do, they should be qualified as such.
I don't think finance has it (concur it may be a good idea), but Logistics does (requires LSC qual)
The Safety technician rating requires that you be, "in training as a Mission Safety Officer." The bad news is that you have to be qualified as a Mission Staff Assistant to be approved as a MSO trainee.
Quote from: NC Hokie on July 30, 2014, 02:57:59 PM
The Safety technician rating requires that you be, "in training as a Mission Safety Officer." The bad news is that you have to be qualified as a Mission Staff Assistant to be approved as a MSO trainee.
MSA is not THAT difficult to get.
Quote from: JeffDG on July 30, 2014, 02:59:44 PM
Quote from: NC Hokie on July 30, 2014, 02:57:59 PM
The Safety technician rating requires that you be, "in training as a Mission Safety Officer." The bad news is that you have to be qualified as a Mission Staff Assistant to be approved as a MSO trainee.
MSA is not THAT difficult to get.
No, but it's a "hidden" requirement that makes getting the technician rating harder than it initially appears.
Quote from: NC Hokie on July 30, 2014, 04:11:11 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on July 30, 2014, 02:59:44 PM
Quote from: NC Hokie on July 30, 2014, 02:57:59 PM
The Safety technician rating requires that you be, "in training as a Mission Safety Officer." The bad news is that you have to be qualified as a Mission Staff Assistant to be approved as a MSO trainee.
MSA is not THAT difficult to get.
No, but it's a "hidden" requirement that makes getting the technician rating harder than it initially appears.
The same exists for the Logistics one. You need either CUL or MSA as prerequisites for LSC, and for many other ES qualifications.
Quote from: JeffDG on July 30, 2014, 04:56:59 PM
Quote from: NC Hokie on July 30, 2014, 04:11:11 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on July 30, 2014, 02:59:44 PM
Quote from: NC Hokie on July 30, 2014, 02:57:59 PM
The Safety technician rating requires that you be, "in training as a Mission Safety Officer." The bad news is that you have to be qualified as a Mission Staff Assistant to be approved as a MSO trainee.
MSA is not THAT difficult to get.
No, but it's a "hidden" requirement that makes getting the technician rating harder than it initially appears.
The same exists for the Logistics one. You need either CUL or MSA as prerequisites for LSC, and for many other ES qualifications.
I don't deny that ES experience is valuable for staff officers, but look at the following and tell me which one looks out of place:
Track (point where ES specialty training is required)
Chaplain (Senior)
Communications (Senior)
Logistics (Master)
Public Affairs (Senior)
Safety (Technician)
All of the other specialty tracks give members years to get the necessary ES ratings, but a Saftey Officer has to complete one ES rating (MSA) and be enrolled in a second to complete the
first rung on the PD ladder.
I would hazard that's because a unit safety officer is theoretically responsible for safety of the holistic unit,
not just the parts and activities they feel like doing.
Same goes for PAO, and any other all-encompassing position(s).
A Safety officer who wants to be taken seriously, yet ignores 1/3-1/2 of CAP's mission, especially in
a unit otherwise active in that area, won't be.
Realistically, MSA is so laughably simple to complete, I don't see why it is viewed as an issue, frankly it should be
required as part of Level 1.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 30, 2014, 05:43:00 PM
Realistically, MSA is so laughably simple to complete, I don't see why it is viewed as an issue, frankly it should be
required as part of Level 1.
Yes, the tasks are simple to complete, but how many training missions did your wing run last year where MSA trainees could count on getting their mission participation requirements met?
Like a whole bunch, not to mention all the funded A12 sorties that could have used MSAs if they wanted to
and unit/group exercises run as part of the wing's training framework.
One thing my wing is not short of is mission numbered opportunities, nor should any wing if you're creative.
Need MSAs? Light up a C-Level unit tabletop. Done.
My Wing ran at least three SAREX.
Some MSA tasks can be done at the squadron level if you are an MSA SET.
Explain how to sign one up to Mission Base. Run the NESA MSA slides. Explain how to take a log. Written exercise: everyone present signs up everyone, or at least those two next to you. Everyone gets carded. Ask everyone to log the events happening at the meeting. Have them explain what may be needed to log air sorties and communications. Boom! Two MSA tasks done...
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on July 30, 2014, 06:06:35 PM
My Wing ran at least three SAREX.
Some MSA tasks can be done at the squadron level if you are an MSA SET.
Explain how to sign one up to Mission Base. Run the NESA MSA slides. Explain how to take a log. Written exercise: everyone presents signs up everyone, or at least those two next to you. Everyone gets carded. Ask everyone to log the events happening at the meeting. Have them explain what may be needed to log air sorties and communications. Boom! Two MSA tasks done...
I already stipulated that the tasks are easy. Mission participation opportunities are a bit harder to come by.
I'd say that would be a per-wing issue.
Quote from: NC Hokie on July 30, 2014, 06:08:08 PM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on July 30, 2014, 06:06:35 PM
My Wing ran at least three SAREX.
Some MSA tasks can be done at the squadron level if you are an MSA SET.
Explain how to sign one up to Mission Base. Run the NESA MSA slides. Explain how to take a log. Written exercise: everyone presents signs up everyone, or at least those two next to you. Everyone gets carded. Ask everyone to log the events happening at the meeting. Have them explain what may be needed to log air sorties and communications. Boom! Two MSA tasks done...
I already stipulated that the tasks are easy. Mission participation opportunities are a bit harder to come by.
They shouldn't be.
Mission participation can be a simple unfunded tabletop.
My Wing also allows us to request a funded AF training mission online. I am sure other Wings may have that. If yours does not, request a training mission number(s) up the chain.
Quote from: NC Hokie on July 30, 2014, 05:36:13 PM
I don't deny that ES experience is valuable for staff officers, but look at the following and tell me which one looks out of place:
Track (point where ES specialty training is required)
Chaplain (Senior)
Communications (Senior)
Logistics (Master)
Public Affairs (Senior)
Safety (Technician)
All of the other specialty tracks give members years to get the necessary ES ratings, but a Safety Officer has to complete one ES rating (MSA) and be enrolled in a second to complete the first rung on the PD ladder.
And? You got 18 months from joining to get your technician rating for promotion to 1st Lt. What's the big problem? What's the rush? The Powers That Be in safety said "this is what a Technician Safety Officer should look like. Chaplain/comm/logistics/Public Affairs have different ideas for their areas of expertise.
Don't throw out "its not fair"......because it is not fair....it is not anything. Don't want to earn two ES ratings to get your Safety Technician.....pick another specialty tract.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 30, 2014, 08:01:23 PM
Quote from: NC Hokie on July 30, 2014, 05:36:13 PM
I don't deny that ES experience is valuable for staff officers, but look at the following and tell me which one looks out of place:
Track (point where ES specialty training is required)
Chaplain (Senior)
Communications (Senior)
Logistics (Master)
Public Affairs (Senior)
Safety (Technician)
All of the other specialty tracks give members years to get the necessary ES ratings, but a Safety Officer has to complete one ES rating (MSA) and be enrolled in a second to complete the first rung on the PD ladder.
And? You got 18 months from joining to get your technician rating for promotion to 1st Lt. What's the big problem? What's the rush? The Powers That Be in safety said "this is what a Technician Safety Officer should look like. Chaplain/comm/logistics/Public Affairs have different ideas for their areas of expertise.
Don't throw out "its not fair"......because it is not fair....it is not anything. Don't want to earn two ES ratings to get your Safety Technician.....pick another specialty tract.
Thanks for the encouraging words. >:(
What you quoted above was a rebuttal to JeffDG's implication that the ES requirement in the Safety specialty track is no different than the ES requirement in other specialty tracks.
I never said that it isn't fair.
I never said that it needs to be changed.
From there, the discussion focused on my perception that MSA can be difficult to complete. Other posters helped me see that my perception was flawed, and offered constructive suggestions to get MSA mission credit. That, IMHO, is how CAP Talk is supposed to work.
Your post, on the other hand, is a good example of why CAP Talk has such a poor reputation in the larger CAP community.
Quote from: NC Hokie on July 30, 2014, 09:10:40 PMYour post, on the other hand, is a good example of why CAP Talk has such a poor reputation in the larger CAP community.
The topic drift not withstanding, the "larger CAP community" needs to put on their big boy pants in that regard.
Sometimes....someone has to say "Stop your whining and move on".
To all: I'm sorry if my response hurt anyone's feelings. I apologies if I come across a little gruff.
Wow!
Never thought I would see those words from Lord...!
???
I can rest now...
>:D
*Looks outside*
Yep. There's some weird people slouching around outside, moaning about brains or something...