Guys-
I've scoured 60-3 and any other regulation I can get my hands on for a definition of how long an operational period needs to be for any ES qualification, under the "Mission Participation" column, but with no luck.
With an absence of a definition, is it not possible to have someone do two mission participations in 2 operational periods, but with each operational period lasting a very short time?
Thoughts on this?
Somewhere the regs define a GT sortie as 4 hours.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 29, 2007, 12:38:12 AM
Somewhere the regs define a GT sortie as 4 hours.
Need something better then "somewhere".
Moreso, I'm looking for definitions of operational periods for mission base personnel: FLM, MRO, MSA, etc etc.
CAPR 39-3 defines sorties for award of the SAR ribbon, Paragraph 21(c)(2):
(a) Ground personnel performing hazardous duties such as ground rescue or ground search, may be credited with one sortie for each 4 hours of actual participation, but not to exceed three sorties in any 24-hour period.
(b) Ground personnel performing non-hazardous duties, such as base support or staff functions, may be credited with one sortie for each 8 hours of participation, but not to exceed two sorties for any 24-hour period.
However, as discussed on a recent thread, there needs to be better guidance in 60-3 as to what a duty day should be.
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3816.0
Mike
They don't exist. An operational period is an arbitrary designator for a block of time that is preplanned, and then put into action. You will be hard pressed to find an answer as to how long an ops period is, again because it is flexible
For a SAREX, the OPS period is from 0700-1700 or whatever hours you choose.
For a Electronic Search, it's a daily thing with the breakdown that a sortie for GT's is 4 hours, MBS 8 hours, and I don't remember how long for Aircrew. But this only pertains to the criteria for the find ribbon.
For a Missing Person/ Overdue aircraft you are probably looking at somewhere between 4 and 12 hour Ops Periods.
I hope this helps
I'm really asking more in the sense of training.
Lets say that X person is training for a mission base support qualification during a SAREX. What period of time is considered an "operational period" for the basis of considering it as a mission participation, i.e. having a line signed off by their supervisor w/ the mission number. Would it be from the morning briefing till the end of day debrief? From the morning briefing till lunchtime, then another period after lunch till debrief?
Well where I come from, our wing ESO won't (or wouldn't in the past) allow qualification without 2 different mission numbers...
And I would caution you against greasing someone through for qual in 1 day, its just bad form, unless there is some sort of exceptional qualification.
Plus, training in 2 different missions, on 2 different weekends allows time for absorption, and allows for lessons learned.
That being said there is no reason that you could not schedule 2 4-6 hour ops periods and use them both
More relevant?
Quote from: IceNine on December 29, 2007, 01:33:27 AM
Well where I come from, our wing ESO won't (or wouldn't in the past) allow qualification without 2 different mission numbers...
Your Wing ESO is in violation of 60-3, unless your wing has a supplement to it.
Quote from: CAPR 60-3, ยง2-9
...These two "missions" do not have to be on different mission numbers, be Air Force assigned or approved, or be completed after advanced training. These sorties must be complete sorties and/or operating periods where the member participates in all aspects of their assigned mission specialty. It is possible to participate in more than one specialty on a given mission or day.
There's absolutely no greasing going on, and I fully agree with and support everything else you've said.
Quote from: SJFedor on December 29, 2007, 01:42:49 AM
Quote from: IceNine on December 29, 2007, 01:33:27 AM
Well where I come from, our wing ESO won't (or wouldn't in the past) allow qualification without 2 different mission numbers...
Your Wing ESO is in violation of 60-3, unless your wing has a supplement to it.
Yeah, I've stopped fighting that battle, and moved on to more productive tasks
10-4 ;D
Man (Ha Ha made me look) I just went searching for CAPR 10-4... Stupid Public Service codes >:(
Operational periods can vary not only from incident to incident but also during an incident. Some incidents I have been on have an operational periods as short as one hour and as long as 12 hours.
Quote from: IceNine on December 29, 2007, 01:33:27 AM
Well where I come from, our wing ESO won't (or wouldn't in the past) allow qualification without 2 different mission numbers...
And I would caution you against greasing someone through for qual in 1 day, its just bad form, unless there is some sort of exceptional qualification.
Plus, training in 2 different missions, on 2 different weekends allows time for absorption, and allows for lessons learned.
That being said there is no reason that you could not schedule 2 4-6 hour ops periods and use them both
More relevant?
Wow...in GAWG we do NOT do it that way. If you run on two separate sorties for a mission, those are two separate sorties for qualifications. Hell a recent wing leve scanner/observer course was devised so that the two-day SAREX would allow for each participant to get a minimum of two sorties to be at least scanner qualified by the end of the course.
Personally, I disagree with the current regulation on this issue, in particular regarding ground teams. If you live in a fairly large state most of a gt "sortie" can be taken up just driving to the mission base. I think it is the experience involved in actual separate missions that is what we should be looking at. If I spend 8 hours looking for 1 ELT I probably haven't learned as much as I would spending 4 hours each on 2 different ELTs.
Quote from: CAPR 60-3, Page 11, Section 2-3
2-3. Specialty Rating Requirements and Performance Standards. For each specialty rating, standards have been developed to train and qualify members in stages. The most current versions of the task guides for all specialties are found at the National HQ Operations website. Prerequisites must be completed prior to initiating training requirements. Once trainees have met the prerequisites, they will be required to complete familiarization and preparatory training for the specialty before serving in that position on actual or training missions under supervision. Familiarization and preparatory training is the minimum set of tasks that the member must master prior to acting as a supervised trainee on practice or actual missions. These tasks represent those skills that will keep the member safe and allow the member to function under supervision without jeopardizing the mission. This requirement avoids placing personnel not ready to perform certain jobs or those who work for them at risk. Once familiarization and preparatory training is completed, trainees must complete advanced training and participate satisfactorily in two missions before a CAPF 101 is approved and a member is considered "Qualified." Advanced training covers the remainder of the tasks required for specialty qualification. On actual missions, it is expected that these tasks could be accomplished by the trainee's supervisor or other fully trained members if they became critical. Because of this, trainees are allowed to learn these "on the job." These two "missions" do not have to be on different mission numbers, be Air Force assigned or approved, or be completed after advanced training. These sorties must be complete sorties and/or operating periods where the member participates in all aspects of their assigned mission specialty. It is possible to participate in more than one specialty on a given mission or day.
Ice - this has been pointed out to the Wing ESO and is no longer an issue.
However I do tend to agree with River on this, and especially on the ground side, it is far too easy to fudge that second sortie, especially during a SAREx. In my experience, the first one of the day tends to be the full-on preparation, ramp-up style, and the subsequent ones tend to be redeployments after lunch, etc.
In far too many cases, the second sortie is recalled because of time, etc., by the mission base before they actually >do< anything.
However the reg is clear, and absent an approved supplement, as long as the unit commander concurs that they were full sorties, K-SARA-SARA.
Quote from: IceNine on December 29, 2007, 01:08:55 AM
...Snip... For a Electronic Search, it's a daily thing with the breakdown that a sortie for GT's is 4 hours, MBS 8 hours, and I don't remember how long for Aircrew. But this only pertains to the criteria for the find ribbon. ...Snip/... Quote
For an Air Crew it is Wheels up to Wheels down. {Now if the plane has to return to the mission base before leaving the pattern because the MS forgot to pee then I dont' think it will count as a sortie. ::)}
My group has alwas required 1 hour in the search grid with each sortie being 2 hours long for the air side. We have alwas used 8 hours per for the ground side.
I know that they use the GT hours because of the 60-3 regulation but, where they came up with the air teams being 1 grid and 2 on sortie is beyond me.
For USAF the " suggested" period for Aircrew used to be 6 hours (airborne) 8-12 hours total.
Dont know if that is still accurate however.
The wierdest thing I've seen yet is counting every 1-hour shift on an airfield crew as a GT mission and anyone involved in the mission gets credit for all finds. The explanation I was given is that many of the cadets come from states where missions are limited for cadets and this is the only chance they get to get missions and finds.
The scary thing is that when they get home, folks might think they actually know something about GT.
Quote from: IceNine on December 29, 2007, 01:56:22 AM
Quote from: SJFedor on December 29, 2007, 01:42:49 AM
Quote from: IceNine on December 29, 2007, 01:33:27 AM
Well where I come from, our wing ESO won't (or wouldn't in the past) allow qualification without 2 different mission numbers...
Your Wing ESO is in violation of 60-3, unless your wing has a supplement to it.
Yeah, I've stopped fighting that battle, and moved on to more productive tasks
Our wing ESO also refused to acknowledge training I recieved when I attended an Iowa Wing Training Assembly. I had to redo everything in front of an ILWG member.
I politely refused and do not have the qual.
After reading SAR - EMT 1's post....
IF there really is a "NATIONAL HQ STANDARD" then it is high time every one starts going by it. In most SQTR's it says "Discuss" other say "Demonstrate."
With ALL these SET quals out there, then it is high time it becomes STANDARD. Everyone sits down and does it then when people move onto other States then it should follow them.
MY Army 68B, 67T, 67N (former), ALSE, Safety School, etc goes nationwide. Gets checked by NCO's above me thru a taskbook. I do not have to redo everything. I have to show competency just as pilots do on drills and tests. I fi mess something up, I get to demonstrate THAT day or a predetermined meet time to requal and NOT 6 weeks to 8 months later. Get my drift??
Reading this CAP stuff sure starts to make wonder who is on top of this. To refuse another Wing's training is just another reason why there needs to be NATIONAL ACCREDITATION. Now before anyone flames me about pencil whipping, which I DO know happens on this forum, In the former Wing we did alot of show me and discuss me stuff and everyone learned and had fun doing it.
SAR EMT's experience just shows there is lack of trust in the training and training materials that CAP "metes" out. Maybe we need some PJ's to start driving around and assessing the assessors at each Wing starting with the ESO's. How do you suppose that would make everyone feel then???
I think CAP needs an assessment by some of the former ARRS folks and maybe some tough PJ types...
I KNOW I don't everything GT or SAR. I learned THAT when I went to PJOC in 1979 as a cadet. Those boys could put you thru your paces.
I feel CAP needs that.
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on July 28, 2008, 02:40:10 AM
Quote from: IceNine on December 29, 2007, 01:56:22 AM
Quote from: SJFedor on December 29, 2007, 01:42:49 AM
Quote from: IceNine on December 29, 2007, 01:33:27 AM
Well where I come from, our wing ESO won't (or wouldn't in the past) allow qualification without 2 different mission numbers...
Your Wing ESO is in violation of 60-3, unless your wing has a supplement to it.
Yeah, I've stopped fighting that battle, and moved on to more productive tasks
Our wing ESO also refused to acknowledge training I recieved when I attended an Iowa Wing Training Assembly. I had to redo everything in front of an ILWG member.
I politely refused and do not have the qual.
I too would request that you re demonstrate appropriate qualifications and there should be no particular issue with doing that. Refusing to demonstrate skills tells me that you are not comfortable with the approved standards and were greased through by someone less caring.
So essentially you dissed the person who instructed you in the first place, because had you shown those skills there would be no question of their ability to instruct to approved standards in the future, and more importantly proved that that wing is requiring performance to approved standards.
Repetition is not always a bad thing, and you can expect these types of hurdles all through life. Might as well accept them and move on now
It would depend if the member were required to demonstrate the skills or redo the training. Skill demonstration should be no big deal, but I've seen and heard of members being required to redo training that was done in another wing instead of just demonstrating the skills.
Agreed
Very true, but I was replying off of the implication that he was asked to redemonstrate
I agree whole heartedly with the Idea that if they meet the demonstrated standards I don't care if they did 3 jobs in one day.
I don't envy the PJOC invasion to check examiners to the examined since just about everybody gets my CAPID and the SQTR does not require signatures except for final check out. Although the PJOCs would like the # of trainees I boot for not knowing the tasks.
V/R
LT J.
Proud of booting???
I'd be training rather than worrying who to boot??
CAP needs to train and the trainers need to demonstrate and allow those folks to demo the "skill"
I too have folks who can not recall everything and until CAP becomes a paid job then I would to some degree allow more retraining.and request a better performance than before. There are plenty of super sleuth CAP'ers who live and breathe things all CAP. BUT CAP has to improve alot to call themselves EXPERTS! Are you booting just to boot, tough guy??
The text and training, including all the typos, in the MART and Aircrew and Flightline Tasks leave ALOOTTT to be desired, that is for sure. I will take them for what they are worth, for reference only. AND instead of people having to pay 6.00 from CAPMART for the taskbook ( BDU pocket sized) those SHOULD behande out as a package to the membership, just like the US Army does. I know I'll get flak and be told that cost the organization dinero, but you know what? Cessna 182's do too.
V/r heliodoc
Not real sure how there is any correlation to a search asset such as a 182 and the cost of a task guide. That is a reach for any stretch of the imagination.
And add to that the fact that the aircraft are at least by majority funded by Air Force Appropriations.
HQ has no reason to send out taskbooks because there is a large percentage of our membership that does not participate in ES. It would be wasted dollars to send them to everyone.
They have provided the information online and you can do with it as you please. But after some research you will be hard pressed to fine a printer that will run those half sheet guides, staple and put card stock fronts on them for 6.00. It is a steal and not one that nationals should have to fund
Last time I checked the SET quiz hammers on the examining vs training issue in detail.
When I take a trainee out for evaluation for the ability to do the things they were trained in the advanced training, and they cannot do them they don't get signed off for the sortie and get sent back for more advanced training.
I would not say proud of booting, perhaps not ashamed of doing my job as an evaluator. The signature block says performed the job under my supervision not with me hand holding them through every function of the job. If they are at that point they are not ready by a long shot.
Now when they are sent to me for advanced training, I train and if they think they are getting a signature for mission completion as a trainee again they are wrong and do not understand testing vs training.
I have trained hundreds of Military, EMTs, Paramedics, CAP Cadets and Seniors; and I don't loose any sleep about anyone I ever gave my endorsement to. I also have faith in their ability to protect my nation, my family and my life.
Perhaps in some peoples opinion I take my job "Too" seriously but I would rather that then the apparent alternative.
V/R
Lt J.
^ bingo
There is no reason that people should expect certification from the person that really matters, their commander.
As a commander I have certain people that I trust and don't even thing to question should someone walk into my office and show me a SQTR with that person's name on it.
But, if I don't know the trainer or don't trust their methods you better believe that I am going to ask you to re demonstrate the skills before myself or one of my trusted advisors.
It is just bad form to pout and whine because someone asks you to prove yourself.
Because as I mentioned before ultimately it is my fault if you are not ready to perform on a mission. It has nothing to do with the person that performed the training, their name is not on the approval portion of the form.
Quote from: IceNine on July 28, 2008, 03:55:32 AM
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on July 28, 2008, 02:40:10 AM
Quote from: IceNine on December 29, 2007, 01:56:22 AM
Quote from: SJFedor on December 29, 2007, 01:42:49 AM
Quote from: IceNine on December 29, 2007, 01:33:27 AM
Well where I come from, our wing ESO won't (or wouldn't in the past) allow qualification without 2 different mission numbers...
Your Wing ESO is in violation of 60-3, unless your wing has a supplement to it.
Yeah, I've stopped fighting that battle, and moved on to more productive tasks
Our wing ESO also refused to acknowledge training I recieved when I attended an Iowa Wing Training Assembly. I had to redo everything in front of an ILWG member.
I politely refused and do not have the qual.
I too would request that you re demonstrate appropriate qualifications and there should be no particular issue with doing that. Refusing to demonstrate skills tells me that you are not comfortable with the approved standards and were greased through by someone less caring.
So essentially you dissed the person who instructed you in the first place, because had you shown those skills there would be no question of their ability to instruct to approved standards in the future, and more importantly proved that that wing is requiring performance to approved standards.
Repetition is not always a bad thing, and you can expect these types of hurdles all through life. Might as well accept them and move on now
It was not a "demonstration" I was asked to perform. I was bluntly told that nothing done in Iowa counted and that i must start from scratch on the SQTR with a SET qual'd individual from ILWG