For as long as I have been in CAP and been involved in ES, which is about 22 years now, cadets have been deeply involved at SAR Evals. I've had cadets on ground teams, air crews (19 y/o Observer), at mission base, running comms, etc; all during SAR Evals.
I get this email saying that our SAR Eval is coming up in about 20 days (nice notice, huh) and that we need a headcount of cadets who wish to participate. But in a nutshell, this is the extent of their participation:
QuoteI'm sure you know that this is a critical wing event and cadets will be used for traffic control and general gofer type of work.
Is this standard elsewhere?
In my experience in MER, cadets have been
fully integrated in all aspects of the mission. In fact, it often appeared to be a 5 to 1 ratio of cadets to seniors at all missions, including Evaluations.
What gives?
It sounds like whomsoever wrote that bit hasn't worked with cadets enough. Rehabilitation is in order. :D
In my wing if no cadets went to a SAR eval their probably wouldn't be enough people to get anything done.
In my wing is is pretty common to restrict SAREVAL participation to those who are qualified in the position they are going to be working in (no trainees), but other than that we run them pretty much like we do all the other missions.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
The USAF evaluators like to see trainees being trained and the IC using all of a wing's assets - that includes cadets in every position they are qualified to be in.
I didn't say that cadets weren't used. We don't use trainee seniors or cadets if at all possible. I've been very involved in the last 2 or 3 and never heard a complaint from the evaluators about it.
As chairman of the Council for Cadet Ability Recognition, I motion to refer this to the Committee on Raging B.S.
Do I hear a second?
Is it possible that the person wasn't clear and was trying to solicit cadets, who wouldn't be on a ground team or UDF team, to still come out to assist in other duties?
Not using trainee cadets or seniors on Evals???
How in CAP land is anyone "gonna" get trained to get up to speed with the real thing...
Who is shadowing and teaching successors, evan at REAL EVALs?????
Might have to call in a wildland fire interagency management team then to find replacements......they got folks that fill an IC in pinch or whatever else
Might as well not have anybody there representing ANYTHING if you are just training at some SAREX....
Why would those folks even train then??? Something about retention would be ringing there, EH???
We're talking about the once every two year evaluations of a Wing's ES capabilities. Excluding trainees from that single event doesn't hurt anything. They've got plenty of SAREXs and probably several real-world missions to learn their skills. We're not supposed to be learning skills during an evaluation but demonstrating that we can perform them competently.
I look at these evaluations the same way I look at ES task testing. When you're evaluating someone, you're not teaching them, you're seeing if they know what they're doing. Its not an exact match for this situation, but is close.
Please bear with me, I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute. (Who, me?)
If we don't allow trainees to come to the evaluated SAREX, how can we be evaluated on how we train?
The funding for SAREXs is typically called "training" money. If we're not upgrading anyone in a new position, are we really training?
Devil's advocate mode off. I think its fine, but these questions need to be answerable.
Not learning skills during an evaluation???
What are ALLLLL those Homeland Security drills, nuke plant exercises, etc
Everybody on those things have to do it competently, also.
BUT they have trainees as in wildland fire getting taskbooks signed off during the REAL THING
So this CAP stuff I read about not using cadets or trainees during the REAL CAP THING, goes right against the grain of training
You learn even with competent people, even after an AAR, there is plenty of room for improvement
CAP not using cadets and trainees, during Evals, ought to be wrritten up in an AAR and rectified relecting future use of these folks, so as to be trained up....
We are all replaceable, and some of us are not going to be in CAP for 100+ years to be in an exclusive "club."' Competency is a skilll that is learned and tested, better involve more folks who are interested rather than the clique of a few "competents"
Cadets and SM not competent??? I beg to differ!!!!! >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D
\\\
No devils advocate here, Scott
You bring up excellent points
That Wing may want to check what that "training money" is about
DHS grants require a PET system ( planning, exercise, and training) and if 1AF money is based on training the trainees. Then there needs to be a check on that dime and what is up!!
This is taken directly from the ops plan for our SAREVAL scheduled for later this year:
- The objectives of this exercise are to provide on going training for the ICP Staff, Aircrews, and Ground Teams.
- The exercise will also test the Wing in its ability to execute the Emergency Services Mission that has been put upon the wing.
- The Wing's Search and Rescue operations, SDIS, ARCHER, Homeland Security, and Disaster Relief will be evaluated along with the quality of training being provided.
- All CAP ES members will be current and qualified or in training as stated in MIMS. Those members with an SQTR will be under the immediate supervision, at all times, of a qualified trainer in the specific specialty.
Note that training is the first objective. Continuing...
Cadet participation is encouraged. Cadets may participate as Ground Team members if they are qualified or possess a valid SQTR. Additionally, cadets will be permitted to participate in various ICP functions such as flight line, communications, operations, administration, and computer data input.
Heliodoc beat me to this next item, so I'll second him. Federally managed incidents such as wildland fires and disaster responses allow trainees to participate, right next to fully qualified personnel, in the thick of the incident, and get signed off on their NWCG and FEMA taskbooks (= CAP SQTRs). I know because I'm working on both kinds of taskbooks now.
Mike
Thanks, Mike
Just got off a helitack assignment after 2 days up here in the Midwest
I was a HECM and TOLC 17 years ago BEFORE the taskbook system came in to affect/ effect
Still learning to this day EVEN after 21 years turning wrenches on some of the same ships still flying around fire today.
Training ....... priceless and ONGOING Being a "TRAINEE" again after those years off of the tactical fire environment, by being a A&P for years in between sure made me appreciate the whole taskbook system
Sometimes more detailed than a CAP SQTR and in some cases, NOT.
But there was plenty of discussion as well as evaluation...Something CAP needs to pick up on....There are NO SUPER fire fighters and there are NO super SAR folks. Just plenty of folks needing to be mentored to be HUMBLE and COMPETENT
When you can plan your "emergency" months ahead you can pick and choose your people to put on an excellent show with all the dogs and all the ponies. Of course, don't forget the kid at the end with the shovel and the manure wagon cause he will be busy. When the balloon goes up, you want as many people trained as possible, cadet and senior, because you don't know who will show up when you can't plan months ahead. Another good example of CAP not training like they play and not playing like they train.
Our cadets are an integral part of our Squadron, both when "SAREXing" or on an actual mission. They're not excluded from any activity. They know what's expected, and always deliver.
Quote from: MSgt Van on April 25, 2009, 08:58:41 PM
Our cadets are an integral part of our Squadron, both when "SAREXing" or on an actual mission. They're not excluded from any activity. They know what's expected, and always deliver.
Spot On! I feel the same way. We include Cadets in as much activity as we can.....minus Counter Drug of course!
I think I would just show up with a team or two of cadets just to see what happens....it would be fun to see how the evaluators look on tasking 2 equiped and qualified ground teams on non GT/UDF assignemnts.
mk
{tongue firmly in cheek}
Maybe the Srs don't want the youngun's to show them up! ;D
One team. I hated it as a cadet when we had trained for something for a long time but when the cool stuff happened we were elbowed aside by SMs who hadn't been nearly as diligent. I saw more than a few fellow cadets quit because they were treated like this. I don't think that cadets today are much different.
In all honestly I believe in a ground team unit as a family this includes trainees in our ground team (ground team of the year for our wing BTW!) we are a unit wwe fight and bicker like a regular family but we're together when it counts! At SAREX's/EVALs/Real deal seal missions if we didn't have our trainees it wouldn't be the same. The USAF evaluators aren't that scary they ar there to make notes on how well you train new people if you train them well and by the book congrats your wing gets money and assests woohooo! So trainees should attend or else what are you gonna do show the USAF guys hat you can train a GTL at a GTM3 task? Yeah that'll fly as well as a H-4
Quote from: SARADDICT on April 26, 2009, 08:25:21 PM
In all honestly I believe in a ground team unit as a family this includes trainees in our ground team (ground team of the year for our wing BTW!) we are a unit wwe fight and bicker like a regular family but we're together when it counts! At SAREX's/EVALs/Real deal seal missions if we didn't have our trainees it wouldn't be the same. The USAF evaluators aren't that scary they ar there to make notes on how well you train new people if you train them well and by the book congrats your wing gets money and assests woohooo! So trainees should attend or else what are you gonna do show the USAF guys hat you can train a GTL at a GTM3 task? Yeah that'll fly as well as a H-4
That's why it's called a team. Otherwise, you have a ground gaggle with a ground gaggle leader. You're not a team until you've worked together on a regular basis. If you cut out cadets, you're cutting your "bullpen" considerably. If cadets can't play, then don't let them train.
This whole thing has gotten me thinking and re-thinking my future as a recently appointed DCC. I come from 22 years of integrating cadets right along side of senior members in all aspects of CAP ES.
See the attached picture. This shows 15 squadron members at a larger wing SAR EVAL about 10 years ago. Notice there are more cadets than seniors.
This SAR EVAL will be the second activity inside a month's time where cadets were intentionally used as "slave labor" by directing traffic or acting as a "gopher".
I have taken it slow since showing my face for the first time in a year back in December. I have yet to commit to anything more than 3/4 of weekly meetings and a weekend activity every other month. I wish I had more time and energy to offer to see if I can make some changes, but at this point, I'd lose the battle.
(http://www.jacksonvillesquadron.org/images/bowden_push-up.jpg)
We have always had cadets participate -- mainly GT, MRO, MSA, some FLM, even the occasional CUL.
Frankly, I find them more focused on the task at hand than some SMs
and most cadets will actually do what they're asked to do by competent authority ...... not always so with "other" members! :D
Quote from: es_g0d on April 27, 2009, 03:26:14 AM
and most cadets will actually do what they're asked to do by competent authority ...... not always so with "other" members! :D
Ain't that the truth!
As an IC, I often wished that members who only participated to fly (I'm talking aircrew, not pilots) would stay home from SAREXes. There were always more than neded, they'd get underfoot....heaven forbid you suggested they train in a 2nd specialty!
Eventually we started giving preference in aircrew assignments to those who cross-trained, and would spend part of the training mission doing their 'other' job.
pshhhh I have yet to meet an aircrew member that would ditch the flight suit, lounging in the aircrew "lounge" , and the eating out to trade all of it for a pair of BDUs and boots and pound some ground! Actually I take that back I have met one aircrew member that has ground pounded he even gave up his slot.
During our SAR-EVAL last October our ground branch set up a camp at an alternate location. We had full blown qualified members and I brought 14 GTM-3 trainees with me (all cadets). They only thing they were missing were their two exercise participations. Perfect opportunity!
In fact, now that I think about it, I don't think our wing could actually put together more than maybe 2 Ground teams without cadets. We have something like 12 GTLs in the entire wing and only about 3-4 (including myself) are physically capable of pounding some ground.
Anyway...the Air Force evaluators were more concerned with making sure that we were sending out the "qualified supervisors" with the trainees than whether or not someone was a trainee.
I think SAR-EVALs are a perfect opportunity for trainees to see a larger scale mission, a lot of personnel, etc. My (current) wing does not restrict trainees from participating in SAR-EVALs, and I think (in our case) it is a good decision.
I cannot fathom a SAR EVAL, SAREX or full blown mission without Cadets. At a lot of the mission I have been on, without cadets we would not have had radio operators, ground teams, or people to update status boards. It has been my privlidge to have worked with a large number Cadets that have put seniors to shame when it came to dedication and the ability to count on them.
Trainee's should always be utilized under the supervision of qualified personnel. The stress's that occurr during a SAREVAl or a real mission just cannot realisticaly be recreated in a SAREX. It is a good way to weed out those who cannot handle the stress or come to the realization that they are not suited for the position they are training for.
It's been quite some time since I've been to a SAREX. The last one I went to, if it wasn't for the cadets, we would have failed miserably. One of my cadets ran the Comm section, had 3 seniors and a Coastie working for him. He was a C/SMSgt at the time, and sick with the flu. His section got the highest marks of the whole exercise. For the first 4 or 5 years after I got back in, the cadets ran the ground teams, or at least in this area they did. The only reason they had a senior member with them was as a driver and the regs required a senior member be with them.
To me, ANY wing that forbids cadets or trainees at a SAREX, is begging to be shut down. Or at least the Wing Ops and ES Officers should be relieved immediately. And possibly the Wing CC.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on April 27, 2009, 12:21:00 PM
During our SAR-EVAL last October our ground branch set up a camp at an alternate location.
This hit a sore point for me - the GBD is
not responsible for the teams that are not operational, this is an RUL / Logistics function.
I've seen way too many major exercises go bad because the GBD was distracted setting up and taking care of the camping area.
^^^ That requires a fully functional and traned LSC - something in very rare supply in CAP. The SQTR tasks for LSC do not even come close to qualifing someone to function as a LSC in a multi-day event with multiple locations and deployed ground teams, aircrews, and mission base personnel.
Not to go off topic, but... how long do SAREVALS last?
Roughly a week. But that includes different types of activities at different levels. It tends to end up with Friday PM, Saturday AM/PM, and Sunday AM as the main activity periods.
Quote from: SARADDICT on April 27, 2009, 12:12:13 PM
pshhhh I have yet to meet an aircrew member that would ditch the flight suit, lounging in the aircrew "lounge" , and the eating out to trade all of it for a pair of BDUs and boots and pound some ground! Actually I take that back I have met one aircrew member that has ground pounded he even gave up his slot.
Not a good idea to speak in such generalities. Before I was a "zipper suited sun god" type (Mission Pilot), I pounded an awful lot of ground, even though I had aircrew quals. I still make sure I get out there and get dirty a few times a year. I fully believe that, to be a good, effective MP, I need to have experience as one of those guys on the ground. Others may disagree, but when I'm working with a GT from the air, I'm always thinking "Ok, what is that GTL seeing? What can I do to facilitate getting him on target?"
Thanks, I was wondering about why the NY SAREVAL is a week long on the calendar, I was worried that I wouldent be able to participate because of school.(Yes I will be a cadet at a SAREVAL!)
I'm ground, air, and base staff qualified (IC3). If I have a choice, I always opt for ground team.
As for the cadets on missions, I was qualified as a GT Leader when I was 15. There were many missions that I took an all cadet, qualified and equipped team out, with a token GES qualified SM to drive the van. We consistently found our targets faster than any other teams on the search. Most of the SMs in the squadron only wanted to be aircrew, and resisted GT training, lest they end up walking through the dirt while looking up at their "precious" flying overhead.
The cadets typically are more motivated to learn the job and do what is needed, than many SMs. Plus, they tend to have more time to commit. Excluding them, especially after they work so hard to train, is a slap in their face, and greatly impairs retention.
Quote from: Short Field on April 30, 2009, 05:19:49 AM
Roughly a week. But that includes different types of activities at different levels. It tends to end up with Friday PM, Saturday AM/PM, and Sunday AM as the main activity periods.
That's not typical and varies by wing, it also depends on what you're referring to - regular training exercises (SAREx), or the biennial wing evaluations (though technically they are annual as the mid-term one is a practice).
A SAREx can be as long as the PIC has the ability to plan it, though most are on a weekend. If NYWG is doing a week-long activity, that's a local mandate.
In most GLR states the biennial evals and annual practices are a weekend, Fri-Sun.
Quote from: SJFedor on April 30, 2009, 05:33:44 AM
Quote from: SARADDICT on April 27, 2009, 12:12:13 PM
pshhhh I have yet to meet an aircrew member that would ditch the flight suit, lounging in the aircrew "lounge" , and the eating out to trade all of it for a pair of BDUs and boots and pound some ground! Actually I take that back I have met one aircrew member that has ground pounded he even gave up his slot.
Not a good idea to speak in such generalities.
Ditto - here's one as well, though my accidental ability to execute at the bare minimum of standard for GBD has kept me in the EOC for most major excercises the last few years.
Quote from: Short Field on April 30, 2009, 04:35:18 AM
^^^ That requires a fully functional and traned LSC - something in very rare supply in CAP. The SQTR tasks for LSC do not even come close to qualifing someone to function as a LSC in a multi-day event with multiple locations and deployed ground teams, aircrews, and mission base personnel.
CAP does not use ICS the way we should. Look at what we require for LSC and look at what a FEMA rated IMT LSC has to have done and you will get the idea. CAP does not have a 101 rating for Support Branch Director or Services Branch Director....Nothing in the way of medical unit, food unit, supply unit, facilities unit, ground support, etc, etc , etc......hell the way it is set up now the only thing with requirements in the CAP Logistic Section is CUL....So since there is no policy I guess we could appoint a 12 yr old MSA to serve as Services Branch Director??
My point is we are playing games when it comes to ICS and the rest. We require ICS course and then do not follow the ICS program.
Interestingly though, we are one of very few national organizations that actually has a curriculum developed to the extent that we do. Many other organizations it's mainly a matter of seniority.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 30, 2009, 12:56:24 PM
In most GLR states the biennial evals and annual practices are a weekend, Fri-Sun.
That was probably true 5 to 6 years ago, when evals were almost purely a SAR event. Today's Graded Training Exercise, normally include a Counter Drug, Disaster Relief and finally SAR. The Counter Drug portion is normally flown the week before the SAR portion followed or concurrently with Disaster Relief Sortie's to photograph targets of interest. During all of this the IC will be receiving email and alerts that require the wing to change its response posture and to start bringing members of the general staff into the situation. The Planning Section Chief and Operation Section Chief will start analyzing data and generating the necessary sortie information so that aircrews or ground teams can start carrying out the tasking. Normally on Thursday, the IC will receive tasking that requires the wing to establish a mission base with a complete staff. An in brief will be conducted on Friday evening to the Evaluators and the staff will receive additional tasking from the Eval Team. Then comes the weekend where the EVAL team will throw everything they can think of at the IC and mission staff to see how they cope. In reality, the eval is mostly about the wings ability to run a large mission, traditionally 1 to 2 aircrews will be evaluated and 1 ground team evaluated.
At least that has been my expierence as an IC, OSC or as Wing ES.
The only restriction I've regularly seen on SAR-EVALS/SAREX's is that units sending cadets must also send/arrange for senior supervision of their cadets. (aside from those pesky age restrictions)
I can remember back in the day a SAR EVAL in our wing, and really, the worst thing to deal with were the Seniors who didn't want to give up their squadron van to Ground Ops because they didn't want the other squadrons to "mess it up." After the IC told them to do it or go home, they decided they needed to take allll the stuff out of their van and put it into the van they were reassigned to. And of course, as luck would happen, the scenario we had involved opening an envelope 10 minutes into the mission, which tasked the team to change a tire, which, as was pointed out, could not be accomplished because they had switched tire rods and had the wrong type of rod to get the lug nuts off the wheel.
And yes, for the most parts, the cadets will show up, and do as they're told. But to really be useful, they need to learn. It's been pointed out a couple times in the posts I've been reading that nobody is teaching their replacements anymore. This is a prime example of that exact problem.
It really is but another problem I have seen with Ground Teams is that the cadets not being taken seriously enough. I mean these are soem pretty mature indiviuals who have dedicated their weekend to training to save lives and so I believe people need to stop reffering to them as kids and "telling" them what to do and start thinking them as young adults who can think for themselves. And if I see a cadet who looks young but has a GTM 1 rating then I am going to treat them with the same respect as I would a Senior Member.
Quote from: SARADDICT on May 03, 2009, 03:26:15 PM
It really is but another problem I have seen with Ground Teams is that the cadets not being taken seriously enough. I mean these are soem pretty mature indiviuals who have dedicated their weekend to training to save lives and so I believe people need to stop reffering to them as kids and "telling" them what to do and start thinking them as young adults who can think for themselves. And if I see a cadet who looks young but has a GTM 1 rating then I am going to treat them with the same respect as I would a Senior Member.
Agreed. As a cadet, I was spending my weekends on UTM's and SAREX's, SAREVALS and the like. Now that I've been inactive and I'm getting back into the swing of things, I'd have no problem asking a qualified cadet on how to do something. And if a cadet is a GTM1 and truly earned it, and didn't just get pencil-whipped, then yeah, he or she would get the same respect as anyone. It's about being able to do the job, not how old you are (age restrictions aside).
wow, i am truly saddend by this quote, the funny part is that im am much much younger than most of those seniors and im far more physicaly fit and can gurantee that i have more sar expiriance and yet im not allowed to participate, whata load of trash...
Quote from: Mendoza1243 on May 14, 2009, 06:29:04 PM
wow, i am truly saddend by this quote, the funny part is that im am much much younger than most of those seniors and im far more physicaly fit and can gurantee that i have more sar expiriance and yet im not allowed to participate, whata load of trash...
Mr. Mendoza, you may or may not have more SAR experiecne then some of the seniors you run across, however what you probably don't have yet is common sense when it comes to knowing your own limitations. Unfortunately, it takes having lived life for a little while to realize that.
As an GBD or OSC or IC, I have no problem sending out a ground team with a senior as the driver while a cadet is the actual ground team leader after thourghly briefing the senior that he is to carefully listen to the cadet and take guidance from the cadet, however the senior member is responsible for ensuring that no one is put in jeopardy. I will also in this situation carefully brief the cadet and then perform a sortie briefing with both present, to make sure they are on the same page.
Then you sir are one of the few that i have met. you see unfortunately many seniors see cadets with the highest gt and ranger grades as being nothing more than "traffic directors"
tho i do fully understand wat ur saying about "knowing ur limitations" as many cadets simply do not.
Where does your "Ranger" grade show up on your 101. By the way, it is OK to type whole words on your posts.
Quote from: Mendoza1243 on May 14, 2009, 06:29:04 PM
wow, i am truly saddend by this quote, the funny part is that im am much much younger than most of those seniors and im far more physicaly fit and can gurantee that i have more sar expiriance and yet im not allowed to participate, whata load of trash...
You may be more physically fit than
some seniors, but you write like a 5 year old sends text messages.
I could care less about your Ranger tab you wear on your uniform in an effort "not to brag", but your attitude and inability to write a structured sentence speaks for itself. I don't have a Hawk Mountan Ranger tab and I'll smoke you on the PT field and on the SAR field.
Now stop posting like a cocky wanna-be and learn to realize that many on this board are well versed at GSAR and all aspects of Emergency Services Operations. And it
is cool to use proper grammar and complete sentences.
Quote from: Mendoza1243 on May 14, 2009, 06:29:04 PM
wow, i am truly saddend by this quote, the funny part is that im am much much younger than most of those seniors and im far more physicaly fit and can gurantee that i have more sar expiriance and yet im not allowed to participate, whata load of trash...
...and I wouldn't let you within 100 miles of my ground team...
If he was, it would probably be because HE was the one in trouble! And once you rescue him, he'd claim he could've found himself faster...
Quote from: Stonewall on May 15, 2009, 01:28:26 AM
Quote from: Mendoza1243 on May 14, 2009, 06:29:04 PM
wow, i am truly saddend by this quote, the funny part is that im am much much younger than most of those seniors and im far more physicaly fit and can gurantee that i have more sar expiriance and yet im not allowed to participate, whata load of trash...
You may be more physically fit than some seniors, but you write like a 5 year old sends text messages.
I could care less about your Ranger tab you wear on your uniform in an effort "not to brag", but your attitude and inability to write a structured sentence speaks for itself. I don't have a Hawk Mountan Ranger tab and I'll smoke you on the PT field and on the SAR field.
Now stop posting like a cocky wanna-be and learn to realize that many on this board are well versed at GSAR and all aspects of Emergency Services Operations. And it is cool to use proper grammar and complete sentences.
Come on... Mendoza's got some valid points. Let's not dismiss them simply due to some poor grammar.
As for physical fitness - we do have a large number of seniors who are out of shape (I'm still in weight regs for the USAF uniform, but not by much). For many of our missions that doesn't matter, but it does slow one down on a ground team.
Have you seen his handful of other posts? Its not just poor grammar...
I recently (3 days ago) attended the ORWG evaluated SAREX but I felt that before I showed up I was not wanted. my senior member contact disappeared at our meeting before I found out when and where to show up not cool. When I did show up (after multiple emails and phone calls) I was very glad I did I learned alot and I think the seniors realized that I could actually help rather than hinder. One senior actually told me the week before that he got the feeling that other seniors didnt reallt want cadets attending??? THATS WHY WE CADETS ARE HERE!!!
^ ?!?!
what?
I, not just speaking from a cadet's point of view, believe that cadets can be very useful at SAREVALs. For a SAREVAL, it would probably be wise to send cadets/senior members that already have training since it is an EVALUATION. For the Texas Wing SAREVAL, we had very high ratings in many areas. The humorous part of it was the fact that a lot of the sections with the highest ratings, were areas that were worked with a majority of cadet participants. At my mission base, I worked and coordinated the mission sign in (IMU) as a MSA. Every one of the MSAs were cadets and each one did a fantastic job in their duties. From a trainer's perspective, I find that cadets will catch on just as fast as senior members, if not at times faster. I am not crediting/discrediting SMs or Cadets more than the other, but each need to be allowed to do their job if they are capable. Many people are capable of more than they seem. They just need to be given a chance.
Quote from: coolkites on August 13, 2009, 04:10:19 AM
I recently (3 days ago) attended the ORWG evaluated SAREX but I felt that before I showed up I was not wanted. my senior member contact disappeared at our meeting before I found out when and where to show up not cool. When I did show up (after multiple emails and phone calls) I was very glad I did I learned alot and I think the seniors realized that I could actually help rather than hinder. One senior actually told me the week before that he got the feeling that other seniors didnt reallt want cadets attending??? THATS WHY WE CADETS ARE HERE!!!
No, that's why YOU are here. Many cadets have no interest at all in ES. They're here for Flying or for Leadership Training.
There are many different reasons people join CAP, ES just happens to be just one reason.
Quote from: coolkites on August 13, 2009, 04:10:19 AM
I recently (3 days ago) attended the ORWG evaluated SAREX but I felt that before I showed up I was not wanted.
I can only speak for myself. As a qualified MRO and MSA I will always step aside if and when a cadet is present and wishes to avail himself or herself of the chance to work in communications or MSA duties. If you're qualified or have a SQTR card for either of those ES specialties you can count on me to assist you in any way I can. And yes, I was there in Aurora OR along with you among many others.
Quote from: Camas on August 20, 2009, 10:01:53 PM
Quote from: coolkites on August 13, 2009, 04:10:19 AM
I recently (3 days ago) attended the ORWG evaluated SAREX but I felt that before I showed up I was not wanted.
I can only speak for myself. As a qualified MRO and MSA I will always step aside if and when a cadet is present and wishes to avail himself or herself of the chance to work in communications or MSA duties. If you're qualified or have a SQTR card for either of those ES specialties you can count on me to assist you in any way I can. And yes, I was there in Aurora OR along with you among many others.
Thanks Camas actually I was stationed in Medford. I was the only cadet to show up for the SAREX EVALV for our entire squadron out of 20 cadets
Quote from: Mendoza on May 14, 2009, 06:48:47 PM
Then you sir are one of the few that i have met. you see unfortunately many seniors see cadets with the highest gt and ranger grades as being nothing more than "traffic directors"
What's a "ranger grade" and where it is documented?
Quote from: Rotorhead on August 22, 2009, 03:19:05 AM
Quote from: Mendoza on May 14, 2009, 06:48:47 PM
Then you sir are one of the few that i have met. you see unfortunately many seniors see cadets with the highest gt and ranger grades as being nothing more than "traffic directors"
What's a "ranger grade" and where it is documented?
Good question. Hmm...
Only PAWG and certain members of my own wing seem to know.
The ranger grade is obtained from Hawk (and other places?) where it is listed nobody knows
There used to be a double secret squirrel page on the Hawk or PAWG site that explained all the ratings. Dunno if it's still there.
[edit]
Forget that, it's on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Air_Patrol_Ranger).
Quote from: SarDragon on August 23, 2009, 07:48:41 AM
There used to be a double secret squirrel page on the Hawk or PAWG site that explained all the ratings. Dunno if it's still there.
[edit]
Forget that, it's on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Air_Patrol_Ranger).
Sounds like the GSAR School we have in Colorado.
By the way, where is all this documented in the CAP regs, i.e., wearing extra patches like "Expert Ranger" on BDUs and different colored shirts, etc? I haven't seen it.
Quote from: Rotorhead on August 23, 2009, 03:11:31 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on August 23, 2009, 07:48:41 AM
There used to be a double secret squirrel page on the Hawk or PAWG site that explained all the ratings. Dunno if it's still there.
[edit]
Forget that, it's on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Air_Patrol_Ranger).
Sounds like the GSAR School we have in Colorado.
By the way, where is all this documented in the CAP regs, i.e., wearing extra patches like "Expert Ranger" on BDUs and different colored shirts, etc? I haven't seen it.
Try looking in the PAWG 39-1 Supplement. Of course that reg only applies if you're in PAWG....
Cadets can and should be used at SARevals as well as any other training situation. What better training do we offer that is closer to a real world situation then a SAReval?
My daughter participated in 5 SARevals as a cadet. The last three SARevals in three different states were as AOBD, GBD, and GTL.
Quote from: badger bob on August 25, 2009, 02:16:43 AM
Cadets can and should be used at SARevals...
Yes, but they don't. Many folks believe that
kids cadets have no place in ES other than acting like gophers and traffic control. It's a true shame if you ask me, but FLWG is a different beast compared to my experiences in MER.
Bring on the cadets, as long as they a mature enough to do their jobs and refrain from public displays of poor behavior. (Just this weekend I was CUL at an air show, where a cadet decided that CC1 was a fine place to imitate body function noises.) That kind of behavior can turn some folks off to the entire idea of cadet participation in "real" activities.
On the other hand I had an MRO helping me who was quite responsible and was very helpful.
It's a shame when the immature behavior of some limits those who have their act together. As adults we have to work a little harder to acknowledge the difference and allow opportunities to learn and excel.
Quote from: wuzafuzz on August 25, 2009, 07:21:40 PM
Bring on the cadets, as long as they a mature enough to do their jobs and refrain from public displays of poor behavior. (Just this weekend I was CUL at an air show, where a cadet decided that CC1 was a fine place to imitate body function noises.) That kind of behavior can turn some folks off to the entire idea of cadet participation in "real" activities.
Yeah, because "adults" never embarass us.
Quote from: Stonewall on August 25, 2009, 07:48:50 PM
Quote from: wuzafuzz on August 25, 2009, 07:21:40 PM
Bring on the cadets, as long as they a mature enough to do their jobs and refrain from public displays of poor behavior. (Just this weekend I was CUL at an air show, where a cadet decided that CC1 was a fine place to imitate body function noises.) That kind of behavior can turn some folks off to the entire idea of cadet participation in "real" activities.
Yeah, because "adults" never embarass us.
True enough. If we can work around the embarassing adults (and we do it all the time), we can work around the embarassing cadets. I'd wager corrective action has a better success rate with wayward cadets than with wayward seniors.
Quote from: wuzafuzz on August 25, 2009, 08:07:33 PMI'd wager corrective action has a better success rate with wayward cadets than with wayward seniors.
Concur.
I remember as a young cadet, circa 1989, Major Otto (folks in FLWG may remember him) giving my buddy and I a good scolding when a local dude in Gainesville saw us farting around acting the fool. All it took was that one time and never again, not under George's watch ::)