Limits on numbers of Ground Team Leaders per unit?

[NH_LFOD]

Hi folks,

Is there any regulation stating that an IC or other member of the command structure is able or otherwise authorized to limit the number of people qualified in a certain ES rating (say GTL or MOs) per unit, wing, or even geographic area?

What would you say if you heard that there could only be one GTL qualified in your unit at a time or only one person with a CAP drivers license per unit and then only if the unit maintains its own CAP vehicle...

[Eclipse]

I would say that someone is seriously misinformed about the regulations, the program, and how to staff for missions.

There are no such regulations or limitations within the National ES Curriculum.

Wings may limit CAP driver's licenses, but I have never heard of a wing holding back GTL's by trying to connect the license requirement to a unit vehicle.  If that were the case, most wings would have less than 10 GTL's total.

Most wings are trying to ramp UP ground qualified members, not artificially limit their numbers.

[♠SARKID♠]

Hi folks,

Is there any regulation stating that an IC or other member of the command structure is able or otherwise authorized to limit the number of people qualified in a certain ES rating (say GTL or MOs) per unit, wing, or even geographic area?

What would you say if you heard that there could only be one GTL qualified in your unit at a time or only one person with a CAP drivers license per unit and then only if the unit maintains its own CAP vehicle...

I would say you've been spoon fed a big pile of malarkey.  Theres no reg limiting GTLs.

[JC004]

no.  that would be terribly stupid.  what if said GTL was on vacation or mission pilot had been drinking?

[RiverAux]

An IC certainly wouldn't have any authority in the matter at all.  I suppose a Wing could limit the number of people qualified in certain specialties, but I can't think of any circumstance where they would really want to, especially in regards to GTLs. 

[RickFranz]

It almost sounds like someone is trying to make a power play, by being the "one and only".

[IceNine]

I've never heard of such a thing applied to any specialty except IC.  I have heard of wings limiting IC's by location, and total force etc.

[NH_LFOD]

It's unbelievable, isn't it!?  Well, it's happening..."somewhere in the midwest."

[Eclipse]

ES specialties are ultimately approved by unit/group/wing CC's, so unless this "IC" is also in your chain of command, he likely has no authority to prevent "extra" people getting qualified.

Now if he happens to be a Wing CC, or Wing DOS/ESO (with the authority), different equation from a possibility standpoint, however I cannot remotely imagine what the justification for this would be if challenged.

CAP DL's are generally approved at the Wing level by the Wing LGT, so he'd have to be in agreement as well.

If this is just some random IC, I can't see how he'd have any authority to stand in the way. 

Any more detail you can share on where this person falls beyond "IC"?

[DC]

That is absolute bull. What is the point in reducing your ES capability willingly? By limiting the people qualified to do things you are going to shoot yourself in the foot if your one qualified person is unavailable.

Very, very stupid.

[Short Field]

My Dream Team for a Mission Base Staff would be for EVERYONE to be qualified as an IC.  If I could also field aircrews and ground teams with everyone qualified as ICs as well as MP/MOs and GTLs, it would be even better.

Why would you opt to have lessor trained people handling a mission when you could have better trained people???  That just reeks of stupid.

[lordmonar]

Hi folks,

Is there any regulation stating that an IC or other member of the command structure is able or otherwise authorized to limit the number of people qualified in a certain ES rating (say GTL or MOs) per unit, wing, or even geographic area?

What would you say if you heard that there could only be one GTL qualified in your unit at a time or only one person with a CAP drivers license per unit and then only if the unit maintains its own CAP vehicle...

I would say that the wing or group was setting itself up to fail.

[lordmonar]

It's unbelievable, isn't it!?  Well, it's happening..."somewhere in the midwest."

If you have first hand information of this actually happening....like to you maybe...it needs to be reported to the appropriate level IG ASAP....

[JohnKachenmeister]

This idea is too dumb to even consider.

Was this policy written in crayon?  I am sure whoever came up with it lives in some sort of institution. 

One per unit?  What if he doesn't answer the phone?  How many units have you got?  What if all the GTL's are in a bar together?

Units in CAP are not used as units are in the Air Force.  Our units are merely training centers.  The only "unit" that performs CAP ES missions is the Mission Task Force under an Incident Commander.  And the IC needs a pool of GTL's to call upon.

For the unit commander to fail to train his people for missions is unacceptable.

Fire him.

[arajca]

This idea is too dumb to even consider.

Was this policy written in crayon?  I am sure whoever came up with it lives in some sort of institution. 

One per unit?  What if he doesn't answer the phone?  How many units have you got?  What if all the GTL's are in a bar together?

Units in CAP are not used as units are in the Air Force.  Our units are merely training centers.  The only "unit" that performs CAP ES missions is the Mission Task Force under an Incident Commander.  And the IC needs a pool of GTL's to call upon.

In CO, units are encouraged to stand up complete ground teams. Over the last couple years, the pages have gone out for GTL's/MP's to call in availablility ONLY with a full team/aircrew ready. The team/aircrew is handled as a single resource, not a strike team made up of individuals.

For the unit commander to fail to train his people for missions is unacceptable.

Fire him.

Does the same apply to the unit commanders who ignore the CP mission? AE mission? What if the unit isn't interested in ES?

[JohnKachenmeister]

In CO, they have found a plan that works.  Cool.  I don't know how close units are together there, maybe unit-based teams will work there.

But they should understand that they now have a new commander during the mission... the IC trumps their Squadron leadership. 

In answer to your second question, yes.  We have three missions.  They were given to us by Congress. 

That being said, you are right, there are some members who do not want to work with cadets, or who do not want to work ES, etc.  That does NOT relieve the unit, however, from offering training to those who do.

So, I have a membership that is completely uninterested in ES, except for one member, who wants the training.  The easy thing to do is to transfer him to another unit that does ES.  The right thing to do is to arrange for him to train in ES specialties while remaining a member of my unit.  As commander, all I need to do is keep my one ES member aware of ES training opportunities and complete his SQTR paperwork on time.  That's not too much to ask.

[Eclipse]

For the unit commander to fail to train his people for missions is unacceptable.

Fire him.

Does the same apply to the unit commanders who ignore the CP mission? AE mission? What if the unit isn't interested in ES?

yes.

[LittleIronPilot]

Does the same apply to the unit commanders who ignore the CP mission? AE mission? What if the unit isn't interested in ES?

Ummm...depends I guess. If CP was MANDATED by every squadron, than Senior only squadrons would not exist (or be allowed to exist), same with ES and cadet only squadrons that do no ES work.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Does the same apply to the unit commanders who ignore the CP mission? AE mission? What if the unit isn't interested in ES?

Ummm...depends I guess. If CP was MANDATED by every squadron, than Senior only squadrons would not exist (or be allowed to exist), same with ES and cadet only squadrons that do no ES work.

Not so.

Even senior only squadrons sometimes interact with cadets.  They fly O-flights, participate with cadets on missions, and sometimes send one or more of their membvers to a unit having cadets but lacking pilots for AE training.

My point is that MEMBERS, as volunteers, can opt out of one or more CAP missions and still participate.  UNITS do not have that option.

[NH_LFOD]

For the record, since I started this post, I want to make it very clear that my unit commander is absolutely top notch.  The problem, as I see it, is higher up the food chain.

What frustrates me is that we're essentially being told that our service is not valuable to the Group/Wing because there are others members who are already serving in certain roles/ratings.

And of course, behind this is the well known issue of the same ground teams and aircrews being called first allowing very little opportunity for others in the Group/Wing to participate.

I know, it doesn't make sense, and I'm more than willing to admit that I don't have the full story and to give the Group/Wing the benefit of the doubt.  But from what I've been hearing over and over again something is wrong here.

It's enough to make me post my gear on eBay.