Available dates for service

[Eclipse]

CAPR 60-3 2-3g is clear and unambiguous, and contradict what you say explicitly.

Again, your interpretation of what an IC is allowed to do is incorrect.

[JeffDG]

CAPR 60-3 2-3g is clear and unambiguous, and contradict what you say explicitly.

Again, your interpretation of what an IC is allowed to do is incorrect.

Then, please, give me an alternative that does not involve a severe twisting of the language of the regulation.

The clear and unambiguous wording of the regulation (no interpretation necessary) says you're wrong.

You've said "No SQTR, No Play".  That's plainly false.  If it were true, then the entirely of 2-3g would be a nullity, as it specifically lays out the process for appointing people for tasks for which we have no "specialized training".  So, right there, you're flat out wrong.

The determination of "appropriate training and background" is left, explicitly, to the judgement of the IC in question.  Again, your "No SQTR no play" is flat out false.

[arajca]

"Here, go hand out these water bottles."  You've now received training appropriate to the duties assigned.  Congratulations.

Have you ever actually been in a DA? 

There's more to the safety of the member and the people you are trying to help then handing them a bottle.

Not being a mission liability is a huge part of the training.

I have been disaster areas and worked various functions in a disaster environment.

As for safety concerns, we have someone to deal with that. They're called the MISSION SAFETY OFFICER. They're job is to plan for safety concerns. If the specific operation cannot be done without and unacceptable level of risk to our people, our people should not be sent there.

I'm sorry, GTM does not prepare folks for working in a disaster area. The risks and challanges they may face in a disaster are significantly different than what they'd face in the woods.

[Eclipse]

I'm sorry, GTM does not prepare folks for working in a disaster area. The risks and challanges they may face in a disaster are significantly different than what they'd face in the woods.

I don't disagree, however it does assume a level of self-sufficiency and baseline equipment that is supposed to insure they
don't become a mission liability themselves.

[jeders]

"Here, go hand out these water bottles."  You've now received training appropriate to the duties assigned.  Congratulations.

Have you ever actually been in a DA? 

I can't speak for others, but I have. I handed out water to emergency workers from the back of a Red Cross truck. The only danger I faced is that we probably drank half the water and ended up having to pee about every 10 minutes. I've also done Red Cross damage assessment and home visits, none of which added any more danger than a normal drive down the street. When we wanted to go help with the search for a missing person who had been washed away in flood waters, we were flatly told no, it was too dangerous. Oh yeah, and all of this was done as a member of a CAP ground team. None of us had a CAP DR qual, but we had been through all of the Red Cross training needed; we were in essence GES members with outside training. As JeffDG has pointed out numerous times in his quotes of 60-3, the IC was in the right tasking us for those missions.

[JeffDG]

CAP group shows up at a shelter to help out.

Shelter Manager:  Welcome!  We could sure use the help!
Eclipse IC:  Glad to be of assistance.
SM:  Hey, we have a few cases of water, can you hand them out while we figure out what else we can have you do?
EIC:  Nope.  We don't have training on how to hand out water, therefore, we can't do that.
SM:  You've got to be ******* me.
EIC:  Nope.  Our regulations say I can let people do it, but I don't think it's a good idea, so nope, we can't do it.
SM:  Then you're taking up valuable space.  Leave.

[Eclipse]

and all of this was done as a member of a CAP ground team. None of us had a CAP DR qual, but we had been through all of the Red Cross training needed; we were in essence GES members with outside training.

No, you were a CAP Ground Team, assuming you had the proper qualifications.

[Eclipse]

CAP group shows up at a shelter to help out.

Shelter Manager:  Welcome!  We could sure use the help!
Eclipse IC:  Glad to be of assistance.
SM:  Hey, we have a few cases of water, can you hand them out while we figure out what else we can have you do?
EIC:  Nope.  We don't have training on how to hand out water, therefore, we can't do that.
SM:  You've got to be ******* me.
EIC:  Nope.  Our regulations say I can let people do it, but I don't think it's a good idea, so nope, we can't do it.
SM:  Then you're taking up valuable space.  Leave.

Yeah, OK.

[JeffDG]

CAP group shows up at a shelter to help out.

Shelter Manager:  Welcome!  We could sure use the help!
Eclipse IC:  Glad to be of assistance.
SM:  Hey, we have a few cases of water, can you hand them out while we figure out what else we can have you do?
EIC:  Nope.  We don't have training on how to hand out water, therefore, we can't do that.
SM:  You've got to be ******* me.
EIC:  Nope.  Our regulations say I can let people do it, but I don't think it's a good idea, so nope, we can't do it.
SM:  Then you're taking up valuable space.  Leave.

Yeah, OK.

Just summarizing your position a bit more succinctly.

No SQTR, No Play.  We have no SQTR for handing out water, so we cannot do it, in your world anyway. 

Now, were I the IC, I would do a quick safety rundown on lifting heavy water cases, and so "Go forth and assist"

[jeders]

and all of this was done as a member of a CAP ground team. None of us had a CAP DR qual, but we had been through all of the Red Cross training needed; we were in essence GES members with outside training.

...you were a CAP Ground Team, assuming you had the proper qualifications.

Is that not what I just said? Your assertion, however, is that without a CAP DR/DA SQTR, we're not allowed to do that stuff, which is flat out wrong. We did the work, not because we were a CAP ground team, but because we had been training with the Red Cross for months in order to help them out, regardless of our CAP quals.

[Eclipse]

and all of this was done as a member of a CAP ground team. None of us had a CAP DR qual, but we had been through all of the Red Cross training needed; we were in essence GES members with outside training.

...you were a CAP Ground Team, assuming you had the proper qualifications.

Is that not what I just said? Your assertion, however, is that without a CAP DR/DA SQTR, we're not allowed to do that stuff, which is flat out wrong. We did the work, not because we were a CAP ground team, but because we had been training with the Red Cross for months in order to help them out, regardless of our CAP quals.

My point is you were a "GES with Red Cross training" as you indicated.

You're a GT, and while I have issues with sending them out to do things no on the SQTR, not the same thing we're discussing here, and further even to JeffDG's quotes,
you had training explicitly for the task. You clearly weren't' "GES only".

[Eclipse]

For the record, and my last word on this in this thread, I have personally had these discussions as well
with Wing CC's, Wing DOS' (oh yeah, I was on of those), ICs, NESA people, and yes, even John D himself.

There is no consensus on this by anyone, with the response varying from "hmm, never really though about it" to
expedience vs. common sense, and then the far too typical "No time for backup, shoulder roll in the door..."

Yes, there are many who agree with JeffDGs interpretation of what an IC can assign, there are others who don't.

The reg says what it says, you can't argue that, however it's a single sentence inside a hugely subjective situation
and not one NHQ has chosen to deal with on any level other then looking at their feet and hoping it will go away.

There's no resolution here.

[JeffDG]

For the record, and my last word on this in this thread, I have personally had these discussions as well
with Wing CC's, Wing DOS' (oh yeah, I was on of those), ICs, NESA people, and yes, even John D himself.

There is no consensus on this by anyone, with the response varying from "hmm, never really though about it" to
expedience vs. common sense, and then the far too typical "No time for backup, shoulder roll in the door..."

Yes, there are many who agree with JeffDGs interpretation of what an IC can assign, there are others who don't.

The reg says what it says, you can't argue that, however it's a single sentence inside a hugely subjective situation
and not one NHQ has chosen to deal with on any level other then looking at their feet and hoping it will go away.

There's no resolution here.

Ahhh...the old "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy.  For someone who started off demanding that people not take the word of "some guy", you've certainly become "some guy" pretty quickly when the regulations don't support you.

[Storm Chaser]

It's amazing how hard it's to stay on topic here in CT. Oh well, at least we're still talking about ES and not uniforms.

While there's nothing wrong with using GES members for low treat, minimum training type tasks, I strongly support a DR curriculum and SQTR. Our primary ES role continues to change and our training and qualification process should change as well. I haven't read a single argument here that would convince me that additional DR training and qualification would be detrimental to our mission. I believe it would give us additional tools for when we're call to respond to a disaster. And I personally know of many experienced members in different wings who support the idea, although they don't necessarily make a lot of noise here in CT.

[fokkerfrenzy]

When I said I talked to a qualified individual for guidance, you said and I quote:  "Please cite something beyond "I was told"".

But when you do it it's ok, because?...   

Regardless, I think the matter is answered and closed.  I think we all understand (minus one) what the regs are saying, and can apply ourselves appropriately. 

[Storm Chaser]

My interpretation of CAPR 60-3, section 2-3.g is as follow:

• Need someone to write information on a board; I can assign a GES.
• Need someone to hand out bottles of water at a staging area; I can assign a GES.
• Need someone to handout blankets at a shelter; I can assign a GES.
  
• Need someone to pick up supplies; I can assign a GES with CAP DL if driving a COV.
• Need someone to do damage assessment; I wouldn't assign a GES. Due to lack of a DR/DA specialty, I would probably assign an experienced GT with some additional training in DA.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Yet no one raised the point that Jeders appears to think he was "being supervised by the Red Cross" while handling out those water bottles.

CAP regs state that "CAP personnel will be under control of CAP personnel."

Was Jeders here an IC, or was he as a "Ground Team" only?

Flyer

[FlyTiger77]

The reg says what it says, you can't argue that, however it's a single sentence inside a hugely subjective situation
and not one NHQ has chosen to deal with on any level other then looking at their feet and hoping it will go away.

There's no resolution here.

There is no resolution here unless you believe, as an alternative theory, that when NHQ published regulatory guidance stating:

There are some duty positions that CAP does not have specific specialty qualifications identified. Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member to fill these gaps in order to meet the needs of the mission, but must use good judgment to select personnel who have the appropriate training and backgrounds to be able to successfully complete their assignment.CAPR 60-3, 2-3(g)

what was actually meant was:

There are some duty positions that CAP does not have specific specialty qualifications identified. Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member to fill these gaps in order to meet the needs of the mission, but must use good judgment to select personnel who have the appropriate training and backgrounds to be able to successfully complete their assignment. CAPR 60-3, 2-3(g)


I realize it may be farfetched, but it could serve as an operable theory to use until something better comes along.

[jeders]

Yet no one raised the point that Jeders appears to think he was "being supervised by the Red Cross" while handling out those water bottles.

CAP regs state that "CAP personnel will be under control of CAP personnel."

Was Jeders here an IC, or was he as a "Ground Team" only?

Flyer

No one has raised it because I never said I was supervised by the Red Cross.

You're a GT, and while I have issues with sending them out to do things no on the SQTR, not the same thing we're discussing here, and further even to JeffDG's quotes,
you had training explicitly for the task. You clearly weren't' "GES only".

Exactly, I had training that allowed me to do the job, despite CAP not having a DR/DA SQTR. However, you said that if we have no SQTR, we don't do it, regardless of any outside training we may have. Jeff, and I think everyone else here, believes that a person that has outside training but is GES only in the eyes of CAP should be utilized for the tasks.

My interpretation of CAPR 60-3, section 2-3.g is as follow:


[goog stuff]

• Need someone to do damage assessment; I wouldn't assign a GES. Due to lack of a DR/DA specialty, I would probably assign an experienced GT with some additional training in DA.

This is the only item I take issue with, simply because the average GTM is no more able to do proper damage assessment than anyone else. I would use someone who has training with damage assessment, however, regardless of their cap training so long as they at least had GES. Now for other DR activities, I have no problem using GTs as the primary tool.

[SunDog]

The reg says what it says, you can't argue that, however it's a single sentence inside a hugely subjective situation
and not one NHQ has chosen to deal with on any level other then looking at their feet and hoping it will go away.

There's no resolution here.

There is no resolution here unless you believe, as an alternative theory, that when NHQ published regulatory guidance stating:

There are some duty positions that CAP does not have specific specialty qualifications identified. Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member to fill these gaps in order to meet the needs of the mission, but must use good judgment to select personnel who have the appropriate training and backgrounds to be able to successfully complete their assignment.CAPR 60-3, 2-3(g)

what was actually meant was:

There are some duty positions that CAP does not have specific specialty qualifications identified. Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member to fill these gaps in order to meet the needs of the mission, but must use good judgment to select personnel who have the appropriate training and backgrounds to be able to successfully complete their assignment. CAPR 60-3, 2-3(g)


I realize it may be farfetched, but it could serve as an operable theory to use until something better comes along.

Oh wow, that sounded kinda good. . .!

Havng caught grief from Eclipse for my cavalier attitude over SAS, and pointless negative-value processes in CAP, it's tempting to pile on. . .but

What I'm hearing is a long serving, committed, and frustrated guy who'd like to see some order in the organization.  We've drilled down to the bare metal in so many areas that our attention has to be spread so very thin now; we're semi-paralyzed by a blizzard of adminstrivia, low/no value depth in things from SUIs to confirming we've not counted the wing nuts on equipment we don't have. . .we need a lot less of this kind of junk, or at least we need it segregated. We exalt the trivial, and in doing so, we denigrate the essential.

Heresy here, but showng up for a real mission with the wong color T-shirt is trivial. Mention it after you find the wreckage, after debrief. Silly? Bet you a buck we have people here who would send a critical asset home over the T-shirt.

We have so much detailed "order" that we're overwhelmed with it. We move slow, we stumble over the import of one aspect of preparation over another, and we are not flexible.  This hurts us, it puts people off, they drift away. 

So people running a DR event want some flexibility, probably starving for it, actually; "Pass out the freakin' water already!" He/she doesn't need another snowflake in the avalanche of pointless cr*p they already have to deal with.   

But I bet Eclipse has seen all kinds of "winging it" that wasn't within the bounds of common sense or personal safety; and at the other extreme, I've seen all kinds of claptrap that added zero (or subtracted from) the execution of the mission. IMSAFE? No, genuis, I had a stroke last night, but I got the feeling in my leg back and decided to go fly. . .or, at the other extreme, did you really send the Cadet out to help install the antenna during a thunderstorm?

Somone will do something stupid. So boil down the SOP/training/SAS to essential, FOCUSED, clear, easily articulated, repeatable, meaningful, SHORT, procedures/processes.  How many thousands of pages are in CAP pubs/forms/pamphlets/web pages that apply to almost every member? It's way out of hand. . .