Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 24, 2018, 07:39:14 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Emergency Services & Operations  |  Topic: ES - The forgotten mission?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 3 [All] Print
Author Topic: ES - The forgotten mission?  (Read 2018 times)
CAPSOC_0pur8ur
Member

Posts: 52

« on: April 20, 2018, 11:39:22 AM »

So I know the title of this thread is probably a little bit of an exaggeration, but it's something I think isn't being addressed properly. Ever since each of us joined, we've all been told that CAP has three missions: AE, cadet programs, and ES. Cadets get the opportunity to fly planes, lead their peers, and participate in actual search and rescue/disaster relief missions. Or at least, they're supposed to. We do a pretty good job of producing outstanding cadet leaders and aerospace geeks. But when it comes to ES we're lacking... Badly. Ground team equipment is outdated at best, and downright useless at worst. Cadets usually aren't even GTM3, and most of those who are have never been on a real-world mission. Both AE and leadership have written tests that cadets must pass, and even drill gets a practical test. Why doesn't ES have a required test? Why can't GTM3 be a requirement for Mitchell, and GES be a requirement for the Wright Brothers? Why should the other two missions of CAP be pre-requisites for promotions while ES isn't? Something has to change if CAP is going to continue to claim ES as one of its primary missions. If it means we move to cell phone forensics and NRAT, great! Let's start getting cadets involved! Either way, we can't continue to claim ES as one of our missions and then be completely ineffective when it comes time to perform.
Logged
"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. Thatís when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?Ē -Col John Boyd
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,664

« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2018, 11:49:21 AM »

Hummmm.

Last I trained, a SET-qualified member tested me on GTM and GTL tasks. Not more than 4 weeks ago, 4 members of my squadron were trained on GTM3 tasks.

So yes, we still test.

Maybe your Wing has decided not to test ES personnel? can you let us know which Wing is that? Did they publish the reason why not to test ES personnel?

Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
CAPSOC_0pur8ur
Member

Posts: 52

« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2018, 11:51:11 AM »

Itís not that GTM3 members donít get training... itís that CAP as a whole doesnít require this training like they do for AE and leadership.
Logged
"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. Thatís when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?Ē -Col John Boyd
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,664

« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2018, 11:54:50 AM »

I am surprised by that assessment. CAP NHQ has recognized me with ES ratings and badges, so I cannot agree with your assessment.


Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
CAPSOC_0pur8ur
Member

Posts: 52

« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2018, 11:58:51 AM »

It's not something you can disagree with... it's fact. CAP does not require members to attain ES quals. They do, however, require cadets to take leadership and AE tests in order to promote. See the difference? All three are missions of the CAP, but only two are actively enforced. As a result, ES often doesn't get the attention it needs or deserves.
Logged
"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. Thatís when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?Ē -Col John Boyd
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,664

« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2018, 12:23:37 PM »

Oh, but taking leadership and AE tests are akin to being tested by senior members. Just like you fail leadership tests, you can fail a senior member test. Promoting as a cadet is equivalent to getting an ES rating.
Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
CAPSOC_0pur8ur
Member

Posts: 52

« Reply #6 on: April 20, 2018, 12:27:57 PM »

No, it's not equivalent. Cadets can earn ES ratings. Cadets can also take leadership and AE tests. Both AE and ES are CAP missions, but only AE is required for cadets to promote. Do you see my point?
Logged
"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. Thatís when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?Ē -Col John Boyd
abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,559
Unit: Classified

« Reply #7 on: April 20, 2018, 12:44:00 PM »

ES is not required to advance and shouldn't be.  Not everyone wants to do ES amd it shouldn't be forced.  But given your ID its hard to takr you seriously.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 12:56:23 PM by abdsp51 » Logged
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,124
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #8 on: April 20, 2018, 12:48:00 PM »

You guys are talking past each other.

Luis, what CAPSOC is suggesting (if I read him correctly) is that the Cadet Program should add an ES test to the existing AE, Lead Lab, and PT tests currently used as advancement criteria for each cadet promotion.

Per the program of record, ES is an optional element - not a core element - of the Cadet Program. Completion of an Ops Quals specialty is not, repeat NOT, a requirement for cadet promotion. This is a suggestion to change that.



- break break - to address that suggestion:
I've known a few CAP Squadrons which link the award of the GES rating and/or a subset of task completions to unit level awards. Ten years ago as a unit/CC I discontinued the (improper) procedure at one unit of withholding the Curry ribbon to new cadets until they'd passed a group of ES quals and a 120 question test (you can't add to or take away from National promotion criteria). Instead, I had the unit CP and DO staff work up a plan to reward cadets with the right to earn the Squadron Patch based on completing GES + the tasks for cold and hot weather injury awareness, actions on being lost, and doing a call down roster.  My logic was that these tasks are all useful, safety related SQTR tasks even for cadets who do NOT choose to go far in the ES mission. For example, hot and cold weather injury prevention and response are directly useful at airshows, encampments, etc. as are the others... and all 4 are creditable, standards-based training on the top half of the GTM3 SQTR, which gets the new cadet a taste of creditable ES training to whet their appetite.

That much at least can be done at the unit level right now, using existing training standards, without warranting National level changes to the program.  Just a suggestion to throw out there.

V/r
Spam






Logged
CAPSOC_0pur8ur
Member

Posts: 52

« Reply #9 on: April 20, 2018, 12:49:14 PM »

ES is required to advance and shouldn't be.


First of all, there is no ES requirement for cadet promotions. Second, just because some cadets aren't interested in aerospace, does that mean it shouldn't be required? It's one of our missions, it should be required. If we don't care enough about it to make it a requirement, then we shouldn't advertise it as a main priority.
Logged
"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. Thatís when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?Ē -Col John Boyd
CAPSOC_0pur8ur
Member

Posts: 52

« Reply #10 on: April 20, 2018, 12:50:22 PM »

You guys are talking past each other.

Luis, what CAPSOC is suggesting (if I read him correctly) is that the Cadet Program should add an ES test to the existing AE, Lead Lab, and PT tests currently used as advancement criteria for each cadet promotion.

Per the program of record, ES is an optional element - not a core element - of the Cadet Program. Completion of an Ops Quals specialty is not, repeat NOT, a requirement for cadet promotion. This is a suggestion to change that.



- break break - to address that suggestion:
I've known a few CAP Squadrons which link the award of the GES rating and/or a subset of task completions to unit level awards. Ten years ago as a unit/CC I discontinued the (improper) procedure at one unit of withholding the Curry ribbon to new cadets until they'd passed a group of ES quals and a 120 question test (you can't add to or take away from National promotion criteria). Instead, I had the unit CP and DO staff work up a plan to reward cadets with the right to earn the Squadron Patch based on completing GES + the tasks for cold and hot weather injury awareness, actions on being lost, and doing a call down roster.  My logic was that these tasks are all useful, safety related SQTR tasks even for cadets who do NOT choose to go far in the ES mission. For example, hot and cold weather injury prevention and response are directly useful at airshows, encampments, etc. as are the others... and all 4 are creditable, standards-based training on the top half of the GTM3 SQTR, which gets the new cadet a taste of creditable ES training to whet their appetite.

That much at least can be done at the unit level right now, using existing training standards, without warranting National level changes to the program.  Just a suggestion to throw out there.

V/r
Spam








That's an idea. I'll have to keep that in mind.
Logged
"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. Thatís when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?Ē -Col John Boyd
Holding Pattern
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,274
Unit: Worry

« Reply #11 on: April 20, 2018, 12:51:07 PM »

I was hoping this would be a conversation about 10+ year old task guides.

If you want further cadet engagement in ES, make a really big deal out of GT medal pinning ceremonies. Have a parent do the pinning.
Logged
CAPSOC_0pur8ur
Member

Posts: 52

« Reply #12 on: April 20, 2018, 12:54:25 PM »


If you want further cadet engagement in ES, make a really big deal out of GT medal pinning ceremonies. Have a parent do the pinning.

Again, another good idea.

What do you guys think is the probability that ES could become a prerequisite in the future? Would y'all support making it so? Why or why not?
Logged
"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. Thatís when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?Ē -Col John Boyd
abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,559
Unit: Classified

« Reply #13 on: April 20, 2018, 12:57:22 PM »


If you want further cadet engagement in ES, make a really big deal out of GT medal pinning ceremonies. Have a parent do the pinning.

Again, another good idea.

What do you guys think is the probability that ES could become a prerequisite in the future? Would y'all support making it so? Why or why not?

No and no. 
Logged
CAPSOC_0pur8ur
Member

Posts: 52

« Reply #14 on: April 20, 2018, 01:00:00 PM »

Why? You're not contributing anything worthwhile to the thread, so please, either be helpful or stop interrupting our discussion.
Logged
"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. Thatís when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?Ē -Col John Boyd
Holding Pattern
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,274
Unit: Worry

« Reply #15 on: April 20, 2018, 01:00:50 PM »


If you want further cadet engagement in ES, make a really big deal out of GT medal pinning ceremonies. Have a parent do the pinning.

Again, another good idea.

What do you guys think is the probability that ES could become a prerequisite in the future? Would y'all support making it so? Why or why not?

I have a laundry list of reasons it is a bad idea at a national level.

1. Our training is outdated and not accepted by many, many agencies. This means they don't call us as often as the other teams out there. While callouts vary by state, there are few things that can damage morale quite like training to an outdated standard that isn't accepted and will never be used in your state.

2. ES is a high tempo, high stress activity. Not every cadet can cut it in ES, nor should we demand it of them.

3. Many states have tightened up their rules about individuals under 18 serving in ES roles. As you can imagine, there is a strong "protect the children" mentality in emergency response; rightly or wrongly, many states think that a 12 year old shouldn't be exposed to the things one can be exposed to on a SAR mission in those worse scenarios.

EDIT: Spelling
« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 01:09:25 PM by Holding Pattern » Logged
NC Hokie
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 912
Unit: MER-NC-057

« Reply #16 on: April 20, 2018, 01:08:30 PM »

What do you guys think is the probability that ES could become a prerequisite in the future? Would y'all support making it so? Why or why not?

IMHO, the probability is microscopic because 1) we now live in a world that greatly restricts what cadets ("kids" in the world's eyes) can do in the realm of emergency services; and 2) CAP as an organization no longer has a viable ground-based mission, which is the only type of mission cadets under the age of 18 can participate in.

To clarify my second point, yes, cadets work as MSAs and MROs, but the need for those specialties isn't great enough to justify making every cadet train for those specialties as a prerequisite to advancement in the cadet program.  A nationally-organized ground-based mission (missing person SAR, PODS, etc.) might be enough to move the needle on that.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 01:24:44 PM by NC Hokie » Logged
NC Hokie, Lt Col, CAP

Graduated Squadron Commander
All Around Good Guy
CAPSOC_0pur8ur
Member

Posts: 52

« Reply #17 on: April 20, 2018, 01:11:49 PM »

Holding, I'm going to address each of your points for the sake of discussion. Please don't see this as me shooting down your suggestions.

1. If our training is so outdated that we aren't effective, maybe it's time we update it as well.

2. I'm not saying every cadet should go on real-world missions on a ground team. After all, we don't make cadets who are scared of heights do O flights. Likewise, we don't prevent cadets from flying because it's hard or dangerous. There are positions such as MSA, MRO, and other support staff positions that are neither high stress nor high tempo.

3. Again, there are support staff positions that, while being mission critical, are not dangerous our high stress.
Logged
"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. Thatís when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?Ē -Col John Boyd
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,124
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #18 on: April 20, 2018, 01:22:06 PM »

CAPSOC,


respectfully suggest that you need to define your terms more closely. When you paint with a broad brush, e.g. "ES as a prerequisite" you will get broad brush responses "No and no". Since you ask, my response to your overly broad question is also "no and no", exactly because I will by default vote no on undefined, unbounded, poorly thought out proposals to change what has been refined by a 70 year process of trial and experimentation.


If you were to put forward specific proposals, you might merit a better, more thoughtful response. Were you to draw some comparison between 13 year old cadets taking AE tests although they're not Aerospace Engineers or pilots - and thus proposing similar training to teens who will not be certified first responders.  Try thinking about the CP framework within which you'd ask such questions: would you propose, for example, linking a first aid class to the Wright Bros. award, or the completion of communications training to the Mitchell (both of which awards have applicability well beyond the ES mission, which might be very limited for cadets as stated on a state by state basis). I think you'd get more traction.


So... can you think this through, and give us a better question set before hitting a reflexive reply all?  Give us some specific ideas.

V/r
Spam

(Obviously I'm in my Socratic mode today... I just mentored a new PhD in aircraft flight test methodology and the mood is still there..)




Logged
Holding Pattern
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,274
Unit: Worry

« Reply #19 on: April 20, 2018, 01:24:28 PM »

Holding, I'm going to address each of your points for the sake of discussion. Please don't see this as me shooting down your suggestions.

1. If our training is so outdated that we aren't effective, maybe it's time we update it as well.

2. I'm not saying every cadet should go on real-world missions on a ground team. After all, we don't make cadets who are scared of heights do O flights. Likewise, we don't prevent cadets from flying because it's hard or dangerous. There are positions such as MSA, MRO, and other support staff positions that are neither high stress nor high tempo.

3. Again, there are support staff positions that, while being mission critical, are not dangerous our high stress.

1. Zero arguments here. I'd love to be helping rebuild our manuals.

2 (and 3). You are an MSA. A woman comes into the ICP crying because their daughter is missing and keeps asking you where she is over and over again. The site was just activated and it has a GTL whom is briefing a hasty team and a radio operator in a tent... and you. The IC is available by radio but is 30 minutes out. How many cadets are equipped mentally to deal with this problem? Note I'm not asking for the technical answer to the problem, but commenting on the mental issues at hand.

You are an MRO. This is your first time as an MRO and your best friend is on the first ground team heading out. You get a call from the radioman on the searchline that one of the members fell into a mine ventilation shaft that wasn't marked. How many cadets are equipped mentally to deal with this problem?
Logged
CAPSOC_0pur8ur
Member

Posts: 52

« Reply #20 on: April 20, 2018, 01:27:24 PM »

CAPSOC,


respectfully suggest that you need to define your terms more closely. When you paint with a broad brush, e.g. "ES as a prerequisite" you will get broad brush responses "No and no". Since you ask, my response to your overly broad question is also "no and no", exactly because I will by default vote no on undefined, unbounded, poorly thought out proposals to change what has been refined by a 70 year process of trial and experimentation. Yeah


If you were to put forward specific proposals, you might merit a better, more thoughtful response. Were you to draw some comparison between 13 year old cadets taking AE tests although they're not Aerospace Engineers or pilots - and thus proposing similar training to teens who will not be certified first responders.  Try thinking about the CP framework within which you'd ask such questions: would you propose, for example, linking a first aid class to the Wright Bros. award, or the completion of communications training to the Mitchell (both of which awards have applicability well beyond the ES mission, which might be very limited for cadets as stated on a state by state basis). I think you'd get more traction.


So... can you think this through, and give us a better question set before hitting a reflexive reply all?  Give us some specific ideas.

V/r
Spam

(Obviously I'm in my Socratic mode today... I just mentored a new PhD in aircraft flight test methodology and the mood is still there..)






Itís not a proposal, itís a discussion. Iím not trying to implement change here, Iím just trying to define the problem and outline possible courses of action. If I wanted to implement change right now, an anonymous Internet forum is the last place Iíd go to do so.

Holding, I'm going to address each of your points for the sake of discussion. Please don't see this as me shooting down your suggestions.

1. If our training is so outdated that we aren't effective, maybe it's time we update it as well.

2. I'm not saying every cadet should go on real-world missions on a ground team. After all, we don't make cadets who are scared of heights do O flights. Likewise, we don't prevent cadets from flying because it's hard or dangerous. There are positions such as MSA, MRO, and other support staff positions that are neither high stress nor high tempo.

3. Again, there are support staff positions that, while being mission critical, are not dangerous our high stress.

1. Zero arguments here. I'd love to be helping rebuild our manuals.

2 (and 3). You are an MSA. A woman comes into the ICP crying because their daughter is missing and keeps asking you where she is over and over again. The site was just activated and it has a GTL whom is briefing a hasty team and a radio operator in a tent... and you. The IC is available by radio but is 30 minutes out. How many cadets are equipped mentally to deal with this problem? Note I'm not asking for the technical answer to the problem, but commenting on the mental issues at hand.

You are an MRO. This is your first time as an MRO and your best friend is on the first ground team heading out. You get a call from the radioman on the searchline that one of the members fell into a mine ventilation shaft that wasn't marked. How many cadets are equipped mentally to deal with this problem?

Thatís a fair argument, but there comes a point when we canít continue to live in fear. If we never take risks, weíll never get anything done.
Logged
"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. Thatís when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?Ē -Col John Boyd
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,124
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #21 on: April 20, 2018, 01:27:35 PM »

Follow on thought: this isn't the first time someone has taken a jibe at your screen name, "CAPSOC Operator".


It doesn't bother me personally, but in the light of being taken seriously, and since you appear to be in earnest with putting your thoughts forward re: ops and CP training, you might want to think about modifying your screen name to one less, shall we say, juvenile and amateurish. It would make you look far less like a wanna be kid and more like a person of sincere consideration.


Or at least phrase it in Cyrillic perhaps (grin and hat tip to MAJ Hatkevitch).


R/s
Spam
Logged
CAPSOC_0pur8ur
Member

Posts: 52

« Reply #22 on: April 20, 2018, 01:30:19 PM »

The name is a joke, specifically intended to make light of situations that CAP members tend to take far too seriously. But letís not get off topic here, we were just getting to the meaningful discussion.
Logged
"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. Thatís when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?Ē -Col John Boyd
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,124
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #23 on: April 20, 2018, 01:36:38 PM »

It seemed to be diverging, to me, into a "Cadets do/don't belong in the ES mission" thread, versus what appeared to me to be your original proposal to add ES tasks for cadet Achievements.

Suggest you make a clarification and press on, unless you just want a furball.

V/R
Spam
Logged
Holding Pattern
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,274
Unit: Worry

« Reply #24 on: April 20, 2018, 01:37:49 PM »

CAPSOC,


respectfully suggest that you need to define your terms more closely. When you paint with a broad brush, e.g. "ES as a prerequisite" you will get broad brush responses "No and no". Since you ask, my response to your overly broad question is also "no and no", exactly because I will by default vote no on undefined, unbounded, poorly thought out proposals to change what has been refined by a 70 year process of trial and experimentation. Yeah


If you were to put forward specific proposals, you might merit a better, more thoughtful response. Were you to draw some comparison between 13 year old cadets taking AE tests although they're not Aerospace Engineers or pilots - and thus proposing similar training to teens who will not be certified first responders.  Try thinking about the CP framework within which you'd ask such questions: would you propose, for example, linking a first aid class to the Wright Bros. award, or the completion of communications training to the Mitchell (both of which awards have applicability well beyond the ES mission, which might be very limited for cadets as stated on a state by state basis). I think you'd get more traction.


So... can you think this through, and give us a better question set before hitting a reflexive reply all?  Give us some specific ideas.

V/r
Spam

(Obviously I'm in my Socratic mode today... I just mentored a new PhD in aircraft flight test methodology and the mood is still there..)






Itís not a proposal, itís a discussion. Iím not trying to implement change here, Iím just trying to define the problem and outline possible courses of action. If I wanted to implement change right now, an anonymous Internet forum is the last place Iíd go to do so.

Holding, I'm going to address each of your points for the sake of discussion. Please don't see this as me shooting down your suggestions.

1. If our training is so outdated that we aren't effective, maybe it's time we update it as well.

2. I'm not saying every cadet should go on real-world missions on a ground team. After all, we don't make cadets who are scared of heights do O flights. Likewise, we don't prevent cadets from flying because it's hard or dangerous. There are positions such as MSA, MRO, and other support staff positions that are neither high stress nor high tempo.

3. Again, there are support staff positions that, while being mission critical, are not dangerous our high stress.

1. Zero arguments here. I'd love to be helping rebuild our manuals.

2 (and 3). You are an MSA. A woman comes into the ICP crying because their daughter is missing and keeps asking you where she is over and over again. The site was just activated and it has a GTL whom is briefing a hasty team and a radio operator in a tent... and you. The IC is available by radio but is 30 minutes out. How many cadets are equipped mentally to deal with this problem? Note I'm not asking for the technical answer to the problem, but commenting on the mental issues at hand.

You are an MRO. This is your first time as an MRO and your best friend is on the first ground team heading out. You get a call from the radioman on the searchline that one of the members fell into a mine ventilation shaft that wasn't marked. How many cadets are equipped mentally to deal with this problem?

Thatís a fair argument, but there comes a point when we canít continue to live in fear. If we never take risks, weíll never get anything done.

The tombstone of CAP's ES mission will read precisely that.
Logged
CAPSOC_0pur8ur
Member

Posts: 52

« Reply #25 on: April 20, 2018, 01:45:38 PM »

It seemed to be diverging, to me, into a "Cadets do/don't belong in the ES mission" thread, versus what appeared to me to be your original proposal to add ES tasks for cadet Achievements.

Suggest you make a clarification and press on, unless you just want a furball.

V/R
Spam


The purpose of the thread is to discuss why ES has been given a lower priority than the other missions, as well as possible remedies.
Logged
"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. Thatís when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?Ē -Col John Boyd
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,124
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #26 on: April 20, 2018, 01:48:23 PM »


Yeah... ok. I'm out.

Y'all have fun with this one.
Prediction: locked by midnight.

-  Spam

Logged
CAPSOC_0pur8ur
Member

Posts: 52

« Reply #27 on: April 20, 2018, 01:57:07 PM »

Honestly, I think the point of the post has been reached. We discussed why ES is generally a lower priority and a few possible fixes. There's not a whole lot we can do other than start planting bugs in ears about revamping our ES program, because the ultimate reason people aren't interested or involved is because CAP's ES program is outdated and needs to be reconstructed before it can be effective again.
Logged
"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. Thatís when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?Ē -Col John Boyd
jeders
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,092

« Reply #28 on: April 20, 2018, 02:17:49 PM »

It's not something you can disagree with... it's fact. CAP does not require members to attain ES quals. They do, however, require cadets to take leadership and AE tests in order to promote. See the difference? All three are missions of the CAP, but only two are actively enforced. As a result, ES often doesn't get the attention it needs or deserves.

They also don't require senior members to work with cadets. Nor are cadets required to attend activities outside the unit.

Around these parts, ES is very heavily stressed by those who are able and willing to participate in it, just like the cadet program. But, also like the cadet program, no one is forced to participate in it. If you feel that, based on your local observations, ES isn't stressed enough, then step up and do something about it. But making a program that has little to nothing to do with developing aerospace leaders and making it a requirement for a program that develops aerospace leaders is a really really bad idea.
Logged
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,873

« Reply #29 on: April 20, 2018, 02:22:53 PM »

It's not something you can disagree with... it's fact. CAP does not require members to attain ES quals. They do, however, require cadets to take leadership and AE tests in order to promote. See the difference? All three are missions of the CAP, but only two are actively enforced. As a result, ES often doesn't get the attention it needs or deserves.

They also don't require senior members to work with cadets. Nor are cadets required to attend activities outside the unit.

Around these parts, ES is very heavily stressed by those who are able and willing to participate in it, just like the cadet program. But, also like the cadet program, no one is forced to participate in it. If you feel that, based on your local observations, ES isn't stressed enough, then step up and do something about it. But making a program that has little to nothing to do with developing aerospace leaders and making it a requirement for a program that develops aerospace leaders is a really really bad idea.

I've never been a big fan of the 3 mission concept for exactly the reasons that you point out. In reality, there are only 2 missions: education and service. I do think that there should be a ES requirement to the Cadet Program. Too often you hear "I don't like ES" from cadets who are not being exposed to it. Can't form an opinion on something that you haven't been exposed to. It doesn't even have to be a heavy lift. Tie GENES to the Mitchell, in the same way that encampment is.
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
jeders
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,092

« Reply #30 on: April 20, 2018, 02:24:00 PM »

The purpose of the thread is to discuss why ES has been given a lower priority than the other missions, as well as possible remedies.

The fundamental flaw in that topic is that most of us don't agree with it based on our observations and experience. Around these parts we have monthly exercises plus numerous active missions which are stressed just as much as CP is. Many of these missions, however, are ones which cadets can't participate in. This highlights that CP and ES have different focuses and can't be ranked as one having higher or lower organizational priority.

What I'm trying to say is this, you're making broad statements about a national program based on only your local observations.
Logged
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse
J2H
Seasoned Member

Posts: 200
Unit: MER-MD-031

« Reply #31 on: April 20, 2018, 04:45:41 PM »

TBH I have no interest in ES, I joined for CP.
Logged
SSgt Jeffrey Hughes, Squadron NCO
Glenn L. Martin Composite Squadron MD-031
#217169
CAPSOC_0pur8ur
Member

Posts: 52

« Reply #32 on: April 20, 2018, 04:57:01 PM »

And they are those who have no interest in AE, but they still have to take the tests. Why? Because itís one of our missions.
Logged
"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. Thatís when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?Ē -Col John Boyd
jeders
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,092

« Reply #33 on: April 20, 2018, 05:02:35 PM »

And they are those who have no interest in AE, but they still have to take the tests. Why? Because itís one of our missions.

No, because it's an integral part of making dynamic aerospace leaders, ES isn't.
Logged
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse
CAPSOC_0pur8ur
Member

Posts: 52

« Reply #34 on: April 20, 2018, 05:08:28 PM »

Well duh. Obviously ES isnít an integral part of creating aerospace leaders. Itís an integral part of creating ES leaders. Creating aerospace leaders isnít one of CAPís missions. ES is.
Logged
"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. Thatís when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?Ē -Col John Boyd
abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,559
Unit: Classified

« Reply #35 on: April 20, 2018, 05:12:19 PM »

Well duh. Obviously ES isnít an integral part of creating aerospace leaders. Itís an integral part of creating ES leaders. Creating aerospace leaders isnít one of CAPís missions. ES is.

You need to go back and read up on CP..  ES is not the end all be all of CAP and really its ES junkies like you who turn people off to it.
Logged
CAPSOC_0pur8ur
Member

Posts: 52

« Reply #36 on: April 20, 2018, 05:21:17 PM »

Iím not an ES junky at all. Iím not even GTM3 certified. It just seems odd to me that itís the only one of our three missions that isnít stressed like the others. Either we should be effective in ES or we should change our missions.
Logged
"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. Thatís when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?Ē -Col John Boyd
jeders
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,092

« Reply #37 on: April 20, 2018, 05:24:32 PM »

Well duh. Obviously ES isnít an integral part of creating aerospace leaders. Itís an integral part of creating ES leaders. Creating aerospace leaders isnít one of CAPís missions. ES is.

I don't know you, so I have no idea what your involvement with cadets programs is, if you were ever a cadet, or if you've ever even thought about cadet programs. And so, I'm going to assume that you aren't familiar with the missions of the CAP cadet program, as taken from CAPR 60-1:

Quote
The Cadet Program transforms youth into dynamic Americans and aerospace leaders.

Emphasis mine. The CP is about making leaders with a heavy emphasis on aerospace. ES is about serving those outside of the organization. They are totally separate missions and neither is more or less important than the other. That we often times use cadets in ES does not mean that ES is a way to create leaders (though it does give leaders a chance to practice what they've learned in the CP realm).
Logged
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse
LSThiker
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,830
Unit: Earth

« Reply #38 on: April 20, 2018, 05:26:46 PM »

But when it comes to ES we're lacking... Badly. Ground team equipment is outdated at best, and downright useless at worst.

I agree that I think NHQ has been severely lacking on the Ground Team side of ES.  It seems as though most resources are being pushed for the cell forensics (at least as an outsider, but perhaps I am wrong).  Our current missions appear to be mostly aircrew related missions (not necessarily bad).  The Ground Team does not seem to have nearly as much love, depending on where you are locally.  I know some wings, groups, and squadrons push GT work heavily. 

Quote
Cadets usually aren't even GTM3,and most of those who are have never been on a real-world mission.

I guess the assessment for this is rather based on anecdotal evidence for your area.  In some of the more geographically separated wings, I have seen cadets that are mostly ground team.  However, I would agree that the numbers are decreasing, especially since switching to 406 mHz.  I am not blaming the FAA or the Government powers that required the switch.  The better technology results in less used resources and quicker rescue. 

However, some squadrons probably will never get an ES mission, so why train in that area.  For example, an inner city squadron probably is not going to have the opportunity to go ELT hunting or really go for a missing person search.  If that is true, training is a waste of time if you are not going to use it.  Of course, there is the disaster relief component.  However, one does not need GT training to know how to fill sand bags.  Although I would like to see the GT curriculum geared more towards missing person and disaster relief work and less on the ELT hunt.   

Quote
Why doesn't ES have a required test? Why can't GTM3 be a requirement for Mitchell, and GES be a requirement for the Wright Brothers? Why should the other two missions of CAP be pre-requisites for promotions while ES isn't?

This idea is definitely not new.  It has been tossed around for years and years and decades.  However, there are a few aspects to consider.  ES, while important, is also a decision for the parents.  While I would not knowingly expose a young cadet or otherwise immature cadet to a horrible crash scene, it may very well happen.  For this reason, some parents may have reservations for their child to participate in ES.  What happens if the parent refuses to allow their child to participate in ES training?  Should we hold the cadet up simply because the parent is refusing?  Although you could make the same argument for encampment (parents not allowing their child to go).  Nevertheless, I could see an argument for requiring at least General ES training and/or perhaps MSA or MRO or FLM.  Although, I am always worried that some SMs might see the cadet program as nothing more than a paperwork runner and simply "abuse" (not the right word here) the MSA position. 



That all said, the goal of the Cadet Program is to make aerospace leaders.  Hard to accomplish that without teaching aerospace.  As such aerospace is an integral part of the CP.  On the other hand, ES is not an integral part of the CP as the goal of the CP is not to train ES leaders.  While ES is a mission of CAP, it is not required for any cadet or senior member to participate in ES to contribute to CAP, just as much as it is not required for any SM to participate in the CP. 

I agree that CAP needs to get a bit more focused on its ES side.  Compared to the other missions (AE and CP), it seems like ES is the slowest to move.  How long did it take to get the ES specialty track updated?  Why is the GT task guide still from 2004?  Why are the ES GT Slides so far out of date?  And numerous other examples.  It seems that the National ES Officer needs to get to work updating the GT side of the ES house.  I would not want to increase the workload of NESA, as they already have enough on their own plates, but perhaps a National Staff person solely dedicated to keeping the GT Curriculum up-to-date would be beneficial. 
« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 05:31:41 PM by LSThiker » Logged
jeders
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,092

« Reply #39 on: April 20, 2018, 05:26:58 PM »

It just seems odd to me that itís the only one of our three missions that isnít stressed like the others.

You keep saying that, but you're wrong. I've got way more emails in my CAP mailbox about ES opportunities than I do about CP opportunities. Again, in your small part of the world your observations may be correct; if that's the case then step up and do something. In other parts of CAP (and aside from the areas where CAP legally can't operate or won't ever be invited to the table) ES is heavily stressed, both in general terms and within cadet units.
Logged
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse
LSThiker
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,830
Unit: Earth

« Reply #40 on: April 20, 2018, 05:28:22 PM »

Iím not an ES junky at all. Iím not even GTM3 certified. It just seems odd to me that itís the only one of our three missions that isnít stressed like the others. Either we should be effective in ES or we should change our missions.

So go get GTM3.  And if you are 18+, then also get GTL.  Change that for your area.  Stress ES at your local squadron. 
Logged
CAPSOC_0pur8ur
Member

Posts: 52

« Reply #41 on: April 20, 2018, 05:32:02 PM »

Iím not an ES junky at all. Iím not even GTM3 certified. It just seems odd to me that itís the only one of our three missions that isnít stressed like the others. Either we should be effective in ES or we should change our missions.

So go get GTM3.  And if you are 18+, then also get GTL.  Change that for your area.  Stress ES at your local squadron. 

Working on it  :)
Logged
"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. Thatís when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?Ē -Col John Boyd
Fubar
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 689

« Reply #42 on: April 20, 2018, 06:04:00 PM »

The purpose of the thread is to discuss why ES has been given a lower priority than the other missions, as well as possible remedies.

You keep saying this and you keep getting corrected, I'm going to give it one last try.

In the Civil Air Patrol, the Emergency Services mission has an equal, if not greater priority than the missions of Cadet Programs and Aerospace Education. I mean, out of our $30 million dollar appropriation, which mission sees most of that funding? It ain't CP and AE.

So I'd argue CAP places a higher priority on ES than it does CP, at least based upon funding.

Because you keep using broad terms, people keep telling you that your assertion doesn't line up with the facts. Now consider if you had said this:

Within the Cadet Program, there is a focus on the AE mission, but not the ES mission.

If you'd said that, I'd agree with you. Once you got everyone on the same page, then you'll get a discussion on why people think the ES should not be a part of the cadet program or why people think it should. But you keep saying CAP doesn't focus on ES, which just isn't true and it gets people off course on the discussion.
Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,226

« Reply #43 on: April 20, 2018, 06:04:25 PM »

Our Wing has been fortunate enough to work with the Army in helping train controllers for PAR approaches. We have done this every month for nearly a year now. They appreciate the help and we get pilot and airplane hours.

My point, after reading this thread, is that I'm really not sure this is ES?  I guess thats where the bean counters put it, but my point is that CAP is evolving, and we are looking for new missions. This is a good one, no matter where you classify it.

Same with the Reaper Escort Missions in NY. I really don't think of it as "Emergency Services".  You have to be in ES to participate, but the actual mission isn't emergency or disaster related at all.

May be time soon for Congress to rewrite our Charter and give us new directions.
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO
abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,559
Unit: Classified

« Reply #44 on: April 20, 2018, 08:15:55 PM »

Iím not an ES junky at all. Iím not even GTM3 certified. It just seems odd to me that itís the only one of our three missions that isnít stressed like the others. Either we should be effective in ES or we should change our missions.

Yeah you are if you're this butt hurt about ES not being enough.  Not everyone wants to do ES, not every squadron will be geared towards it and there is nothing wrong with that.

Maybe ES isn't getting the hype in your area because there is simply no need, no desire or bridges were burned,  or maybe just maybe you have not self advertised.  Not to mention all the junkies who think that CAP is the creme de la creme of SAR agencies and all the games that get played getting training and certs. 

I can tell you that ES is big in my wing since half of my emails are all about missions, bivouacs and FTXs.  CAP is is biggest obstacle in ES and will continue to be so until things change. 

But given your so adamant about it and your name well hard to take you seriously...
Logged
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,209

« Reply #45 on: April 20, 2018, 08:26:19 PM »

I can't tell you how many cadets I've seen that jumped through all of the hoops to get ES Qualified, only to quit a year or so later because they were never given a chance to use their ES skills and training.
Many of the ES Only Senior Members don't want to deal with Cadets because they don't want to deal the Cadet Protection Program.
Logged
BraveRifles19D
Recruit

Posts: 31

« Reply #46 on: April 20, 2018, 08:28:33 PM »

Stats from 2016:
Missions
1,265 search and rescue missions
92 lives saved
577 finds
139 other state support missions

I'd say ES is still important. Especially to those 92 people that are still alive thanks to our members.

As for ES training not being a priority, that rests wholly on the senior members of the squadrons/groups. If they don't want to get involved in ES, how are the cadets, even if they wanted to, going to get involved in it? My squadron commander has zero interest in ES. He is an evaluator we can't even get him to sign off on simple line items. We've had to go to another nearby squadron to do any sort of training.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,226

« Reply #47 on: April 20, 2018, 08:48:10 PM »


I'd say ES is still important. Especially to those 92 people that are still alive thanks to our members.


Of course. But a big question is how may of the tens of thousands of CAP members ever participate in these missions?

For one example, a lot of our SAVES now are coming from the "handful" of folks doing the cell phone forensics searches. Fantastic service, but its sort of a splintered off group unrelated to 99.9% of CAP membership.

So many ELT searches done by the same Senior members in a Wing.  So many members standing on the sidelines training for missions that never come.

New missions, new directions .... greatly needed.
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO
BraveRifles19D
Recruit

Posts: 31

« Reply #48 on: April 20, 2018, 08:49:49 PM »


I'd say ES is still important. Especially to those 92 people that are still alive thanks to our members.


Of course. But a big question is how may of the tens of thousands of CAP members ever participate in these missions?

For one example, a lot of our SAVES now are coming from the "handful" of folks doing the cell phone forensics searches. Fantastic service, but its sort of a splintered off group unrelated to 99.9% of CAP membership.

So many ELT searches done by the same Senior members in a Wing.  So many members standing on the sidelines training for missions that never come.

New missions, new directions .... greatly needed.
We had 3 elts in the last month and a half and there were cadets on all the searches.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

Logged
Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 807
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #49 on: April 21, 2018, 12:03:38 AM »

Holding, I'm going to address each of your points for the sake of discussion. Please don't see this as me shooting down your suggestions.

1. If our training is so outdated that we aren't effective, maybe it's time we update it as well.

2. I'm not saying every cadet should go on real-world missions on a ground team. After all, we don't make cadets who are scared of heights do O flights. Likewise, we don't prevent cadets from flying because it's hard or dangerous. There are positions such as MSA, MRO, and other support staff positions that are neither high stress nor high tempo.

3. Again, there are support staff positions that, while being mission critical, are not dangerous our high stress.

CAP does, indeed, have three missions. Participating in one does not require participating in the other two. (Aerospace subjects are integral to the cadet program as part of the cadet program, going back to 1942).

That said, you arenít even talking about incorporating ES into the cadet program. Face it - you are talking about incorporating ground teams into the cadet program. ES and GT are not synonymous - one is a subset of the other.

Whether ES as a whole or GT on its own, a reality is that there is no one-size-fits-all approach that could be melded into CP.  ES needs and  opportunities differ greatly from Region to Region, Wing to Wing. In fact, they often vary over stretches of 100 miles.

ES is always available as an augmentation to CP, where there are needs for it and people qualified to administer it, but it will never be a central element of CP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,404
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #50 on: April 21, 2018, 01:56:36 AM »

I'ma gonna shut this off. It has turned into a bit of a measuring contest, and the OP isn't hearing what he wants, so is repeating himself in hopes that someone might change their mind the next time they hear it.

If anyone has anything further to contribute, send me the post via PM, and I will vet it prior to posting.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Pages: 1 2 3 [All] Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Emergency Services & Operations  |  Topic: ES - The forgotten mission?
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.082 seconds with 25 queries.