Hoping for some "grey beard" information on this. I am relatively new to CAP and don't know all the background on how we got to where we are today.
I have seen some Incident Commanders and Agency Liaisons that are not qualified OSC or PSCs. I first thought this was just due to paperwork errors that failed to renew OSC/PSC when the IC/AL was renewed. However, I was told that when they became IC/ALs, it was before the OSC and PSC positions were created. Seems it was suppose to have happened about the time they stopped being MCs and became ICs.
Of particular concern, what happens to a AL who was never a IC, OSC, or PSC before becoming a AL when the new 60-3 comes out. The draft drops the AL position. Does the AL drop back to their highest ops qualification (in this case a MO)? What do they need to do to add the "prerequisite achievements" to their 101s. Seems silly to have a AL1 also training as a AOBD.
Help!
I think they just renamed both of the liasion positions into "Liasion Officer". There probably are quite a few ICs who got grandfathered in when we went to the new system.
I believe "Liaison Officer" is a separate qualification from "Agency Liaison".
The requirements to become a AL are the same as the requirements for IC. You tend to have either a IC or a AL running a mission. They were too interchangeable, so apparently they are doing away with the AL.
Quote from: N Harmon on June 02, 2008, 10:52:41 PM
I believe "Liaison Officer" is a separate qualification from "Agency Liaison".
Currently you're right, but they're planning on changing it. For example, the recent guidance on NIMS compliance just had Liasion officer. The draft 60-3 revision doesn't seem to be up on eservices anymore or I would point you to it. Not sure whether the new position will be more like the current LO or more like the current AL.
The AL/IC achievements were identical in terms of task training. The AL seemed to be the senior CAP person when CAP was a small piece of a large operation that already had a IC. By being a AL, we didn't step on any toes. After completing IC 400, it is obvious that this is not an issue. So the rationale for the AL position goes away. I never saw anything that called for a AL AND a IC, it was always a AL OR IC.
The LO position really doesn't need to be rewritten. They perform an extremely valuable function. I can see a IC having more than one LO during a complex incident.
Back to the original question: Surely there is someone on this board that was around and working ES before the OSC and PSC positions were established?
All of the "ICS titles" (IC, AL, PSC, OSC, etc.) came to be at the same time in CAP when the ES program transitioned from the 50 and 55 series regs to CAPR 60-3 in 2001.
The first 60-3 (May 2001) had a 101 card transition chart (page 45) with this: "All personnel holding emergency services specialty qualifications will be issued a new 101 card by 1 November 2001. Old specialties that remain current will be transitioned in accordance with the following chart to new specialties."
The chart showed that a member with a current Mission Coordinator (MC) rating automatically qualified as an IC, AL, OSC, PSC, FASC, LSC, AOBD, GOBD, IO, CUL, MRO, MSO, LO, MSA and GES.
Renewal of the new IC rating automatically renewed the lower level ratings. This continued until last year(?). Now each rating must be renewed individually. I believe this is because of the current (May 2004) 60-3 paragraph 2-4(b)(2) "Personnel that are currently qualified in a specialty are expected to be re-evaluated within 3 years of issuance of this regulation change." 3 years was last year (2007).
If there are IC/ALs who were MCs during the transition to IC, and now don't have OSC and PSC, then they let them expire.
In the draft 60-3, the "Agency Liaison" position goes away because this is not an ICS title. The ICS title is "Agency Representative." However, the draft 60-3 doesn't use the title, but states the function will be filled by an IC (qualified or trainee). Apparently the title "Agency Representative" still scares some CAP leadership.
Liaison Officer quals should stay the same between the current and upcoming 60-3. For reference, Agency Reps report to the Liaison Officer, when one is assigned.
Mike
Quote from: sardak on June 05, 2008, 06:11:03 AM
Renewal of the new IC rating automatically renewed the lower level ratings. This continued until last year(?).
As I read 60-3 para 2-4(b)(2), it states "be evauated ... in each specialty (or equivalent specialty) for which renewal is requested." I read that to mean if you are evaluted and renewed as a IC, you automatically get renewed for the equivalent specialites - i.e. the rest of them as indicated on Attchment 4. The draft 60-3 adds the word (or equivalent
higher specialty).
I think it is just software design that when th IC rating is renewed, the computer does not update the rest of the ratings. However, I don't see it stopping us from renewing the other ratings based on the IC renewal.
Quote from: sardak on June 05, 2008, 06:11:03 AM
The chart showed that a member with a current Mission Coordinator (MC) rating automatically qualified as an IC, AL, OSC, PSC, FASC, LSC, AOBD, GOBD, IO, CUL, MRO, MSO, LO, MSA and GES.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Thanks, this is exactly the information I was hoping to find. I read this to mean that if a person was not a transition period MC, then they
must have completed OSC, PSC, etc, prior to becoming a IC or AL.
They should have been. One thing I've seen is people messing up the PSC requirement that you either be or have been qualified at some level on both the air and ground sides of the house (Either a GBD who was at least a qualified scanner at some point or an AOBD who was at least GT3 or UDF qualified at some point). They really need to fix the SQTR to say that.
I expect a overhaul of the Ops Quals module when the draft 60-3 is approved. They have to had the ICS quals so maybe they will fix the other. Hope it is not expect in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first.....
If you review the draft 60-3, you will notice that the section on requirements for each speciality has gone away. It now just references the task guides which contain the offical SQTRs.