Do you all require your members to be invovled in ES?
No.
Its only 1/3 of CAP.
Why would you want to require it? If you did, you could be excluding some very valuable members who can't do ES work. For instance, what if you have the individual who, because of physical limitations, can't participate in ES positions, but is very willing to come to regular meetings and keep the files up to date?
You can certainly encourage members to participate in ES, but I see no need to require it.
I dont want to require it. i was just asking. so many people on this message board are so ES gung ho. I wasnt sure if my unit was the only unit in CAP that doesnt do ES.
My squadron doesn't require it, but I do try to strongly encourage people to participate.
Yes.
Yes.
Because one meeting per month focuses on ES and since attendance at meetings is required, ES is thus required. Just as AE, ML, D&C, etc.
Are you required to attend weekend ES activities? No. But I have made GES certification mandatory by making it "class" during regular meetings.
Quote from: flyguy06 on April 24, 2009, 06:33:49 PM
Do you all require your members to be invovled in ES?
Most of the cadets participate, we've got a few that do other things. Most cadets like to get out into the field and do things like finding simulated ELT's doing line searches, etc.
Senior wise, the pilots like to do the ES flying activity (I'd personally like to see all of them at least trained in ground UDF activities). Somewhat difficult on the ground side, generally because ES nights are during squadron meeting, and the senior staff is trying to complete their work.
I've had some success on the radio communications operators side with senior support. Personally (as a senior member), I don't have an interest in hiking in the woods, camping etc, but do have an interest in the UDF type activity.
The cadet program senior members have help during field training exercise(s) in the woods/hills.
Personally on the senior side, I don't think one should force anyone to do anything they don't want to do. Key point is to "sell" ES and the various functional aspects one can reasonably participate in. Some people just don't like to go into the field & there's plenty of mission base/support positions that needed to performed.
RM
Its definitely offered. We tend to lean more towards aircrews though for ES. Primarily, before some of you get your panties in a bunch, is because we have a plane. And we all know, you dont use it, you lose it.
The majority of our members are here for the cadet program right now because they all joined to spend time with their cadet. We offer the training, but it just hasn't caught on yet as far as GT stuff. We've had a large influx of new members.
Quote from: flyguy06 on April 24, 2009, 06:33:49 PM
Do you all require your members to be invovled in ES?
The schedule is primarily for cadets, about every 4 weeks at the squadron meeting night. Most cadets participate. We've got a few that are doing "other things" squadron related. Most cadets enjoy field training exercises.
Senior wise, the pilots basically have an interest in ES flying activities and not ground related tasks. Personally I'd like to see all the pilots at least obtain & maintain qualifications in ground UDF. Much of the senior staff is busy taking care of performing their assigned staff duties during ES training nights
I've had some success with senior support in the radio communications area. As far as senior members participation, we should "sell" the program, and make sure they know that ES is not just flying in airplanes or walking in the woods, there's plenty of support jobs at the mission base that needs to be done.
Some members do have medical conditions/impairments that would limit what they can do in ES, but they still CAN CONTRIBUTE, and it's important to at least try to get them involved in some ES aspect.
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on April 25, 2009, 12:27:44 AM
Personally I'd like to see all the pilots at least obtain & maintain qualifications in ground UDF.
"Airmobile DF Teams" is an awesome concept. I've been 3+ hours' drive from the nearest ground team on multiple occasions ... if I was ill-equipped or inadequately skilled, that poor ground team now has to drive 3 hours each way, plus callout time, plus the time to actually do the final location of the beacon.
That's really unacceptable. So too is taxiing the airplane up and down the ramp to pinpoint a beacon. Bottom line: Aircrews should all be UDFs!
We have a set of sticks in our airplane, and all the regular aircrew folks know how to use them. During our scanner/observer training, we add a session or two on doing UDF stuff.
QuotePersonally I'd like to see all the pilots at least obtain & maintain qualifications in ground UDF.
In order to get and keep Mission Pilot qualifications you have to be able to find an ELT on the ground.
I personally know of 2 or 3 cadets who became Spaatz Cadets, and did not attend any ES training.
ES is not required to progress through the CP system.
Knowing that however, I will emphasize ES training in my squadron. as the Squadron Commander (not yet, but soon).
Quote from: RiverAux on April 25, 2009, 01:41:38 AM
QuotePersonally I'd like to see all the pilots at least obtain & maintain qualifications in ground UDF.
In order to get and keep Mission Pilot qualifications you have to be able to find an ELT on the ground.
I'd think that would be the observer.
I'm not a fan of aircrews finding ELTs. I saw an aircrew trying to DF an ELT on the ground using the DF equipment on board. They were doing 360s between combat-loaded F-15s and didn't notice the Security Police pointing their M16s in their specific direction. Aircrews need to work the air and leave the ground stuff to the UDFs. If there's a situation where it's three hours to the site, then the wing has other problems.
^When and where was this?
Ive DF'd ELTs on the ground taxiing in the airplane. Its really not a big deal. When you narrow it down, you get out and pull out the sticks. Now, if you have a GT on the ground, then sure, let them get it because everyone wants to play. But I did an ELT last weekend where the aircraft was able to DF it to the airport then land and secure it. Nobody else got bothered on their Saturday.
Quote from: Gunner C on April 26, 2009, 12:51:23 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on April 25, 2009, 01:41:38 AM
QuotePersonally I'd like to see all the pilots at least obtain & maintain qualifications in ground UDF.
In order to get and keep Mission Pilot qualifications you have to be able to find an ELT on the ground.
I'd think that would be the observer.
And you would think wrong. Look at the Mission Pilot SQTR.
We're trying to encourage participation as much as we can, but we can't even get most of the cadets interested, and actually have more GT interest from some senior members. Then again none of the local squadrons have an airplane...
No, I don't...because CAP has more than one mission. Members may choose the track of their CAP career. I'm not a fan of aerospace, and if I was forced or limited to; I would not be with CAP presently.
Nope, haven't heard of it being required. However, it seems at least on the senior side of the house that ES is the primary motivation for most to join and participate. Its sort of funny to compare that to CG Aux where participation in operations is much, much lower. Perhaps it is because there are actually quite a few of specific programs for their members to participate in other than operations.
CAP on the other hand doesn't offer seniors a lot to do, but thats not surprising given that the AF doesn't have anywhere near the variety of domestic missions that the CG has that it needs help with. Maybe if the VSAF program really gets rocking and rolling you will see pockets near AFBs of CAP units that don't do much but that.
Quote from: RiverAux on April 26, 2009, 02:29:42 AM
Quote from: Gunner C on April 26, 2009, 12:51:23 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on April 25, 2009, 01:41:38 AM
QuotePersonally I'd like to see all the pilots at least obtain & maintain qualifications in ground UDF.
In order to get and keep Mission Pilot qualifications you have to be able to find an ELT on the ground.
I'd think that would be the observer.
And you would think wrong. Look at the Mission Pilot SQTR.
That needs to be changed . . . Observers DF, pilots fly. If a pilot wants to DF, he needs to turn in his F91 and climb into the right seat - if you want to get good at it, it takes lots of experience. Same with a mission pilot. I don't think you can reasonably expect to achieve excellence in both.
BTW, the above incident with the C-172 DF pirouettes was in the 1999/2000 time frame at Seymore Johnson. The 4th Wing CC was
UNHAPPY to say the least. The pilot and the "observer" came blithely into base ops in their polo shirts with big smiles on their faces - meanwhile, the SECFOR folks were dead serious. The NCWG/CC got a phone call the next morning. I forbade aircrews in my group to land to check out ELTs. We made sure that we had ground crews on all missions. I made sure that the entire group understood that the aircraft was
supporting the GT, not calling the shots.
Gunner C: sometimes simple geography necessitates a GT being 3+ hours from any given location. Making a carte blanche statement like "a wing having other problems" is myopic at best.
Aircrew vs GT supporting ONE ANOTHER in MUTUAL SUPPORT is a better way to look at it. I've had by bacon saved as a GT member just as many times as I've saved an aircrew; and as an aircrew member the reverse also rings true. Its a team with a common objectives, and if there's a quarterback on the team, then that is the IC. Neither "linemen" (the GT or aircrew) calls the plays.
An aircrew worth their salt needs to be able to find a beacon on the ground, WITH THE PROPER EQUIPMENT. As already said, taxiing around to locate a beacon is verboten in my world. That doesn't preclude a quick pass or two, but the ballerina act should be saved for a Little L-Per.
If an aircrew is taxiing in a SIDA or military controlled ramp, that sounds like a "U" for judgement. Prosecuting ANY beacon without overhead involvement is also a bad idea. Individual lack of thinking, though, shouldn't preclude the rest of us from being competent in many skills.
Gunner, this particular sideshow of the thread was talking about pilots doing DF work ON THE GROUND. Not really a Pilot vs Observer thing as you said.
As a group commander some years ago I strongly encouraged all SMs and all cadet officers to qualify GES at minimum...my thinking was that in a real DR situation we could at least legally let them help with non-101 tasks (e.g., filling sand bags,
distributing water bottles)....my experience has been that when something like that occurs, even the non-ES folks want to 'pitch in'
Quote from: davedove on April 24, 2009, 06:54:04 PM
Why would you want to require it? If you did, you could be excluding some very valuable members who can't do ES work. For instance, what if you have the individual who, because of physical limitations, can't participate in ES positions, but is very willing to come to regular meetings and keep the files up to date?
While I would not require it, I would argue that there are several ES specialties that those with physical limitations could participate in. For example, members with physical limitations would be able to serve as a MRO, MSA, and many other mission base staff positions that do not require GT or air crew prerequisites to be qualified. The only real issue would be having accessible transportation for those members to get to the exercise or mission.
Quote from: 1st Lt Daniel Sauerwein on April 27, 2009, 04:27:04 AM
Quote from: davedove on April 24, 2009, 06:54:04 PM
Why would you want to require it? If you did, you could be excluding some very valuable members who can't do ES work. For instance, what if you have the individual who, because of physical limitations, can't participate in ES positions, but is very willing to come to regular meetings and keep the files up to date?
While I would not require it, I would argue that there are several ES specialties that those with physical limitations could participate in. For example, members with physical limitations would be able to serve as a MRO, MSA, and many other mission base staff positions that do not require GT or air crew prerequisites to be qualified. The only real issue would be having accessible transportation for those members to get to the exercise or mission.
Another very real issue is having accessible facilities. Not all facilities we may be using are accessible.
Strongly encourage, but can't "require" per se.
However they have to do "something", and if they aren't in Cadet Programs, what else is there for an adult
to do in CAP.
Few and far between are the adult members who only want to sit in the back room and process paperwork for activities they never participate in.
QuoteFew and far between are the adult members who only want to sit in the back room and process paperwork for activities they never participate in.
I had a guy who was the squadron finance officer for many years who hadn't done anything but that in a very, very long time.
Quote from: RiverAux on April 27, 2009, 10:09:19 PM
QuoteFew and far between are the adult members who only want to sit in the back room and process paperwork for activities they never participate in.
I had a guy who was the squadron finance officer for many years who hadn't done anything but that in a very, very long time.
My squadron has an admin guy who only comes in on meeting nights to do paperwork now.
So, if I joined your squadron and had no interest in ES. If I just wanted to fly cadets on orides and develop a Color Guard. Would I not be allowed to join your Squadron?
Quote from: flyguy06 on April 28, 2009, 01:25:03 AM
So, if I joined your squadron and had no interest in ES. If I just wanted to fly cadets on orides and develop a Color Guard. Would I not be allowed to join your Squadron?
Fly, did you actually read what I said?
Quote from: Eclipse on April 27, 2009, 09:28:54 PM
However they have to do "something", and if they aren't in Cadet Programs, what else is there for an adult to do in CAP.
A pilot flying o-rides is decidedly "in" cadet programs.
However, regardless, my wing is now requiring all pilots to be TMP's at a minimum, so there's not going to be any pilots that "don't do ES" anymore, anyway. The wing CC wants all pilots operational so that at a minimum they can ferry aircraft and fly highbirds, etc.
I did read what yousaid Eclipse, therefore the question wasnt directed toward you. ;D
Quote from: flyguy06 on April 28, 2009, 01:25:03 AM
So, if I joined your squadron and had no interest in ES. If I just wanted to fly cadets on orides and develop a Color Guard. Would I not be allowed to join your Squadron?
Yes you would be able to join my squadron. Remember what I commented on:
ES is not required to advance through the Cadet Program.
ES is not required to advance through the Senior Member Program
However, as a squadron commander (ok Deputy Commander) I do have the option of encouraging you to attend ES training.