Hi folks,
Is there any regulation stating that an IC or other member of the command structure is able or otherwise authorized to limit the number of people qualified in a certain ES rating (say GTL or MOs) per unit, wing, or even geographic area?
What would you say if you heard that there could only be one GTL qualified in your unit at a time or only one person with a CAP drivers license per unit and then only if the unit maintains its own CAP vehicle...
I would say that someone is seriously misinformed about the regulations, the program, and how to staff for missions.
There are no such regulations or limitations within the National ES Curriculum.
Wings may limit CAP driver's licenses, but I have never heard of a wing holding back GTL's by trying to connect the license requirement to a unit vehicle. If that were the case, most wings would have less than 10 GTL's total.
Most wings are trying to ramp UP ground qualified members, not artificially limit their numbers.
Quote from: NH_LFOD on June 12, 2008, 09:46:03 PM
Hi folks,
Is there any regulation stating that an IC or other member of the command structure is able or otherwise authorized to limit the number of people qualified in a certain ES rating (say GTL or MOs) per unit, wing, or even geographic area?
What would you say if you heard that there could only be one GTL qualified in your unit at a time or only one person with a CAP drivers license per unit and then only if the unit maintains its own CAP vehicle...
I would say you've been spoon fed a big pile of malarkey. Theres no reg limiting GTLs.
no. that would be terribly stupid. what if said GTL was on vacation or mission pilot had been drinking?
An IC certainly wouldn't have any authority in the matter at all. I suppose a Wing could limit the number of people qualified in certain specialties, but I can't think of any circumstance where they would really want to, especially in regards to GTLs.
It almost sounds like someone is trying to make a power play, by being the "one and only".
I've never heard of such a thing applied to any specialty except IC. I have heard of wings limiting IC's by location, and total force etc.
It's unbelievable, isn't it!? Well, it's happening..."somewhere in the midwest."
ES specialties are ultimately approved by unit/group/wing CC's, so unless this "IC" is also in your chain of command, he likely has no authority to prevent "extra" people getting qualified.
Now if he happens to be a Wing CC, or Wing DOS/ESO (with the authority), different equation from a possibility standpoint, however I cannot remotely imagine what the justification for this would be if challenged.
CAP DL's are generally approved at the Wing level by the Wing LGT, so he'd have to be in agreement as well.
If this is just some random IC, I can't see how he'd have any authority to stand in the way.
Any more detail you can share on where this person falls beyond "IC"?
That is absolute bull. What is the point in reducing your ES capability willingly? By limiting the people qualified to do things you are going to shoot yourself in the foot if your one qualified person is unavailable.
Very, very stupid.
My Dream Team for a Mission Base Staff would be for EVERYONE to be qualified as an IC. If I could also field aircrews and ground teams with everyone qualified as ICs as well as MP/MOs and GTLs, it would be even better.
Why would you opt to have lessor trained people handling a mission when you could have better trained people??? That just reeks of stupid.
Quote from: NH_LFOD on June 12, 2008, 09:46:03 PM
Hi folks,
Is there any regulation stating that an IC or other member of the command structure is able or otherwise authorized to limit the number of people qualified in a certain ES rating (say GTL or MOs) per unit, wing, or even geographic area?
What would you say if you heard that there could only be one GTL qualified in your unit at a time or only one person with a CAP drivers license per unit and then only if the unit maintains its own CAP vehicle...
I would say that the wing or group was setting itself up to fail.
Quote from: NH_LFOD on June 13, 2008, 12:01:41 AM
It's unbelievable, isn't it!? Well, it's happening..."somewhere in the midwest."
If you have first hand information of this actually happening....like to you maybe...it needs to be reported to the appropriate level IG ASAP....
This idea is too dumb to even consider.
Was this policy written in crayon? I am sure whoever came up with it lives in some sort of institution.
One per unit? What if he doesn't answer the phone? How many units have you got? What if all the GTL's are in a bar together?
Units in CAP are not used as units are in the Air Force. Our units are merely training centers. The only "unit" that performs CAP ES missions is the Mission Task Force under an Incident Commander. And the IC needs a pool of GTL's to call upon.
For the unit commander to fail to train his people for missions is unacceptable.
Fire him.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 13, 2008, 11:36:07 AM
This idea is too dumb to even consider.
Was this policy written in crayon? I am sure whoever came up with it lives in some sort of institution.
One per unit? What if he doesn't answer the phone? How many units have you got? What if all the GTL's are in a bar together?
Units in CAP are not used as units are in the Air Force. Our units are merely training centers. The only "unit" that performs CAP ES missions is the Mission Task Force under an Incident Commander. And the IC needs a pool of GTL's to call upon.
In CO, units are encouraged to stand up complete ground teams. Over the last couple years, the pages have gone out for GTL's/MP's to call in availablility ONLY with a full team/aircrew ready. The team/aircrew is handled as a single resource, not a strike team made up of individuals.
QuoteFor the unit commander to fail to train his people for missions is unacceptable.
Fire him.
Does the same apply to the unit commanders who ignore the CP mission? AE mission? What if the unit isn't interested in ES?
In CO, they have found a plan that works. Cool. I don't know how close units are together there, maybe unit-based teams will work there.
But they should understand that they now have a new commander during the mission... the IC trumps their Squadron leadership.
In answer to your second question, yes. We have three missions. They were given to us by Congress.
That being said, you are right, there are some members who do not want to work with cadets, or who do not want to work ES, etc. That does NOT relieve the unit, however, from offering training to those who do.
So, I have a membership that is completely uninterested in ES, except for one member, who wants the training. The easy thing to do is to transfer him to another unit that does ES. The right thing to do is to arrange for him to train in ES specialties while remaining a member of my unit. As commander, all I need to do is keep my one ES member aware of ES training opportunities and complete his SQTR paperwork on time. That's not too much to ask.
Quote from: arajca on June 13, 2008, 01:28:34 PMQuoteFor the unit commander to fail to train his people for missions is unacceptable.
Fire him.
Does the same apply to the unit commanders who ignore the CP mission? AE mission? What if the unit isn't interested in ES?
yes.
Quote from: arajca on June 13, 2008, 01:28:34 PM
Does the same apply to the unit commanders who ignore the CP mission? AE mission? What if the unit isn't interested in ES?
Ummm...depends I guess. If CP was MANDATED by every squadron, than Senior only squadrons would not exist (or be allowed to exist), same with ES and cadet only squadrons that do no ES work.
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on June 13, 2008, 01:55:55 PM
Quote from: arajca on June 13, 2008, 01:28:34 PM
Does the same apply to the unit commanders who ignore the CP mission? AE mission? What if the unit isn't interested in ES?
Ummm...depends I guess. If CP was MANDATED by every squadron, than Senior only squadrons would not exist (or be allowed to exist), same with ES and cadet only squadrons that do no ES work.
Not so.
Even senior only squadrons sometimes interact with cadets. They fly O-flights, participate with cadets on missions, and sometimes send one or more of their membvers to a unit having cadets but lacking pilots for AE training.
My point is that MEMBERS, as volunteers, can opt out of one or more CAP missions and still participate. UNITS do not have that option.
For the record, since I started this post, I want to make it very clear that my unit commander is absolutely top notch. The problem, as I see it, is higher up the food chain.
What frustrates me is that we're essentially being told that our service is not valuable to the Group/Wing because there are others members who are already serving in certain roles/ratings.
And of course, behind this is the well known issue of the same ground teams and aircrews being called first allowing very little opportunity for others in the Group/Wing to participate.
I know, it doesn't make sense, and I'm more than willing to admit that I don't have the full story and to give the Group/Wing the benefit of the doubt. But from what I've been hearing over and over again something is wrong here.
It's enough to make me post my gear on eBay.
I'm still boggling over this situation. I can't imagine why anybody in their right mind would even think about limiting their resource pool. What if your GTL is a cadet? (and yes it can happen.) Last time I checked, cadets cannot transport passengers in a CAP vehicle.
I have also never heard that IC's could be limited by geographical area. Those thoughts are simply absurd. We need more qualified people, not less. We are currently turning down missions because people don't want to go out and play. I know that in this area, there are at least 7 IC's within 50 miles of me. As for Ground Team Leaders and Ground Branch Directors, we have 4 GBD's, 6 GTL's and 3 GTL(T)'s in my unit. There is only one IC in my unit although my squadron commander is working up to IC3 right now. We do not have a CAP vehicle as it seems that most of the vehicles in the area are basically junk. We do not have an aircraft nor pilots to fly one or aircrews to post to one. As it is, we are more geared towards the ground side of things with a few members qualified in the different mission base staff positions. As the operations officer, I try to make all training available to whoever wants it. I feel that it's my job to promote ES and get the people that are interested qualified for the jobs that they want to do.
Why anyone would think that this was a kosher idea is beyond me. I say bring out the CAP firing squad.....
Quote from: NH_LFOD on June 13, 2008, 03:17:26 PM
For the record, since I started this post, I want to make it very clear that my unit commander is absolutely top notch. The problem, as I see it, is higher up the food chain.
What frustrates me is that we're essentially being told that our service is not valuable to the Group/Wing because there are others members who are already serving in certain roles/ratings.
Someone is shoveling a big pile of doo doo here. Everyone should be allowed to participate.
Quote
And of course, behind this is the well known issue of the same ground teams and aircrews being called first allowing very little opportunity for others in the Group/Wing to participate.
I've heard of the same thing happening in another wing. A friend of mine who is a squadron commander showed up at his squadron meeting place (to work on some paperwork) on a Saturday and found a full blown REDCAP mission being run out of a trailer next to the squadron building. He hadn't been called and was extremely peeved to find this going on. He talked to the wing commander who didn't really seem to care. This is the kind of thing that needs to stop. It's like being the last kid picked in dodge ball. It's immature and unprofessional.
QuoteI know, it doesn't make sense, and I'm more than willing to admit that I don't have the full story and to give the Group/Wing the benefit of the doubt. But from what I've been hearing over and over again something is wrong here.
No offense but "Duh"... To be honest, I don't even think a call to the group or wing IG would cut any mustard. If you really want to follow this up, I would think that this might have to go higher like to the region or national level. I would suggest that you not circumvent the chain of command. Report it to the group and wing. When they don't do anything, then go knock on the region door. Before doing any of that though, I would probably suggest getting the whole story. Maybe there was a misunderstanding or miscommunication. Good luck to you on this one.
QuoteIt's enough to make me post my gear on eBay.
And I'm the high bidder.... Prepare for that nonpayment dispute. OH YEAH!!! >:D
I think there is a better than even chance that there could have been a misunderstanding somehwhere along the line. Since a lot of times wings like to try to implement policies without putting anything down on paper, stories can get out of whack very quickly.
Quote from: arajca on June 13, 2008, 01:28:34 PM
In CO, units are encouraged to stand up complete ground teams. Over the last couple years, the pages have gone out for GTL's/MP's to call in availablility ONLY with a full team/aircrew ready. The team/aircrew is handled as a single resource, not a strike team made up of individuals.
Variations on this practice are not that unusual. It basically just delegates the responsibility (and workload) of getting a full up crew or team together. It can speed up getting people together and take a load off the IC as an incident is spinning up.
Quote from: Sqn72DO on June 13, 2008, 03:31:28 PM
A friend of mine who is a squadron commander showed up at his squadron meeting place (to work on some paperwork) on a Saturday and found a full blown REDCAP mission being run out of a trailer next to the squadron building. He hadn't been called and was extremely peeved to find this going on.
Either out of the loop or (more likely) not part of the "old boy network". Not a good way to run an organization but all you can do to fight it is stay active, be a little vocal ( can't make them mad at you but you don't have to ignore it), and become too valuable to not call. However this approach does take time...
Nice quote. No additional commentary?
^^^ With age comes experience - and a need for reading glasses to avoid hitting the save button instead of the preview buttom while working multiple quotes.....
n00bs. :)
^^^Well, it was only posted for 46 Seconds before the first response. ;D