Quote from: Gunsotsu on Yesterday at 06:21:37 AM

We've been hearing that particular song-and-dance for more than three years now.

Dear NHQ, put up or shut up.

Its not exactly NHQ.

But yes, we need an updated uniform manual.

If it's not NHQ, where is the hold up coming from?  And, more importantly, is there an idea of when it will be published?

The requester calls the NOC like any other mission.

Actually the requests come from whatever state-level agency has the MOU with the AFRCC (unless coming a federal agency such as the Coast Guard or National Park Service) who pass along the request for assistance from the volunteer SAR team or Sheriff's Office that's actually executing the search. Missions are not routed through the NOC.

Your sheriffs office more then likely already has the ability to "ping" cell phone signals on their own.

While true, those same public safety agencies aren't doing any actual analysis of the information they are being given by the cell carriers. If you look at the presentation that Holding Pattern shared, you'll see a slide with a bunch of red dots all over it. Those are all "pings" of a phone that didn't actually move over a 24 hour period (might have been 48, it's been awhile since I was at the presentation). The team put together two small likely areas (the green shapes on the next slide) by analyzing historical data provided by the carrier and the sheriff's office found the objective shortly there after (shown on the third slide in the series). I've been at the presentation a few times, they often share stories of local law enforcement who make it pretty clear they don't believe in using cell phones to find anybody based on their previous experiences and are blown away by the accuracy of the products the cell team produces by analyzing data instead of just getting "pings" from cell carriers.

Simply calling a cell carrier and asking for a ping is like throwing a dart at the dart board, blindfolded, without knowing if you're even aiming at the right dart board. Unless you know the capabilities of what each carrier can provide, don't trust the pings, look at the data. If you don't know what the data means, call someone who does

Of course CAPR 20-1(i) still calls it Cadet Executive Officer.

And what is the date of that 20-1? Was it even in this century?

Of course CAPR 20-1(i) still calls it Cadet Executive Officer.

For the overseas squadrons, our policy is to disable the account when a member leaves. We have a draft supplement being staffed that outlines this and other rules for os.cap.gov accounts.

Good point. But GES is one of those topics that I prefer to teach because the online test doesn't come close to getting new members oriented with emergency services. If nothing else, it confuses them with reimbursement requirements and regulation numbers. I'm not against online testing, As a matter of fact I remember how much time we used to spend on cadet testing at meetings and am so glad that cadets can test at home now. It frees up meeting time for other classes and activities. I just like to be able to answer questions about emergency services early for members interested in ES.

I know that some squadrons have solid ES programs so GES is a formality for members to knock out before moving onto better training. For those units the online test may work well. For an overseas cadet squadron (like mine) ES is less emphasized so the classroom method works better. I think its good to have both options available depending on the squadron's needs.

The rewrite of the encampment guide was >not< when Cadet Executive Officer was eliminated at the unit.

This change is at least 5 years old.

If they still have paper to carry they are doing it wrong.

I've been in CAP for nearly three decades and am overall impressed with eServices. With that said, why do we still use CAP Form 2As to process service ribbons such as recruiter, community service, etc? You can add previously authorized ribbons so I know that there is a place for the awards in eServices. The problem is that you have to submit the awards to be added yourself. The commander, admin officer, personnel officer, etc can't add them. CAP has come a long way and I think that this is one way that we can ease some of the admin burden on commanders and staff. And the online method ensures accountability because you can see where the award is sitting rather than trying to find a piece of paper that passes through numerous hands.

Just my personal opinion. I am overall impressed with eServices so this isn't a critique of the system in general. Just a recommendation.

Any other methods that squadrons use to make sure service ribbons are processed and tracked properly?

JB