Do you require ES involvment

[Gunner C]

Personally I'd like to see all the pilots at least obtain & maintain qualifications in ground UDF.

In order to get and keep Mission Pilot qualifications you have to be able to find an ELT on the ground.

I'd think that would be the observer.

And you would think wrong.  Look at the Mission Pilot SQTR.

That needs to be changed . . . Observers DF, pilots fly.  If a pilot wants to DF, he needs to turn in his F91 and climb into the right seat - if you want to get good at it, it takes lots of experience.  Same with a mission pilot.  I don't think you can reasonably expect to achieve excellence in both.

BTW, the above incident with the C-172 DF pirouettes was in the 1999/2000 time frame at Seymore Johnson.  The 4th Wing CC was UNHAPPY to say the least. The pilot and the "observer" came blithely into base ops in their polo shirts with big smiles on their faces - meanwhile, the SECFOR folks were dead serious. The NCWG/CC got a phone call the next morning.  I forbade aircrews in my group to land to check out ELTs.  We made sure that we had ground crews on all missions.  I made sure that the entire group understood that the aircraft was supporting the GT, not calling the shots.

[es_g0d]

Gunner C: sometimes simple geography necessitates a GT being 3+ hours from any given location.  Making a carte blanche statement like "a wing having other problems" is myopic at best.

Aircrew vs GT supporting ONE ANOTHER in MUTUAL SUPPORT is a better way to look at it.  I've had by bacon saved as a GT member just as many times as I've saved an aircrew; and as an aircrew member the reverse also rings true.  Its a team with a common objectives, and if there's a quarterback on the team, then that is the IC.  Neither "linemen" (the GT or aircrew) calls the plays.

An aircrew worth their salt needs to be able to find a beacon on the ground, WITH THE PROPER EQUIPMENT.  As already said, taxiing around to locate a beacon is verboten in my world.  That doesn't preclude a quick pass or two, but the ballerina act should be saved for a Little L-Per.

If an aircrew is taxiing in a SIDA or military controlled ramp, that sounds like a "U" for judgement.  Prosecuting ANY beacon without overhead involvement is also a bad idea.  Individual lack of thinking, though, shouldn't preclude the rest of us from being competent in many skills. 

[RiverAux]

Gunner, this particular sideshow of the thread was talking about pilots doing DF work ON THE GROUND.  Not really a Pilot vs Observer thing as you said. 

[ZigZag911]

As a group commander some years ago I strongly encouraged all SMs and all cadet officers to qualify GES at minimum...my thinking was that in a real DR situation we could at least legally let them help with non-101 tasks (e.g., filling sand bags,
distributing water bottles)....my experience has been that when something like that occurs, even the non-ES folks want to 'pitch in'

[Maj Daniel Sauerwein]

Why would you want to require it?  If you did, you could be excluding some very valuable members who can't do ES work.  For instance, what if you have the individual who, because of physical limitations, can't participate in ES positions, but is very willing to come to regular meetings and keep the files up to date?

While I would not require it, I would argue that there are several ES specialties that those with physical limitations could participate in. For example, members with physical limitations would be able to serve as a MRO, MSA, and many other mission base staff positions that do not require GT or air crew prerequisites to be qualified. The only real issue would be having accessible transportation for those members to get to the exercise or mission.

[arajca]

Why would you want to require it?  If you did, you could be excluding some very valuable members who can't do ES work.  For instance, what if you have the individual who, because of physical limitations, can't participate in ES positions, but is very willing to come to regular meetings and keep the files up to date?

While I would not require it, I would argue that there are several ES specialties that those with physical limitations could participate in. For example, members with physical limitations would be able to serve as a MRO, MSA, and many other mission base staff positions that do not require GT or air crew prerequisites to be qualified. The only real issue would be having accessible transportation for those members to get to the exercise or mission.

Another very real issue is having accessible facilities. Not all facilities we may be using are accessible.

[Eclipse]

Strongly encourage, but can't "require" per se.

However they have to do "something", and if they aren't in Cadet Programs, what else is there for an adult
to do in CAP.

Few and far between are the adult members who only want to sit in the back room and process paperwork for activities they never participate in.

[RiverAux]

Few and far between are the adult members who only want to sit in the back room and process paperwork for activities they never participate in.

I had a guy who was the squadron finance officer for many years who hadn't done anything but that in a very, very long time. 

[notaNCO forever]

Few and far between are the adult members who only want to sit in the back room and process paperwork for activities they never participate in.

I had a guy who was the squadron finance officer for many years who hadn't done anything but that in a very, very long time.

My squadron has an admin guy who only comes in on meeting nights to do paperwork now.

[flyguy06]

So, if I joined your squadron and had no interest in ES. If I just wanted to fly cadets on  orides and develop a Color Guard. Would I not be allowed to join your Squadron?

[Eclipse]

So, if I joined your squadron and had no interest in ES. If I just wanted to fly cadets on  orides and develop a Color Guard. Would I not be allowed to join your Squadron?

Fly, did you actually read what I said?

However they have to do "something", and if they aren't in Cadet Programs, what else is there for an adult to do in CAP.

A pilot flying o-rides is decidedly "in" cadet programs.

However, regardless, my wing is now requiring all pilots to be TMP's at a minimum, so there's not going to be any pilots that "don't do ES" anymore, anyway.  The wing CC wants all pilots operational so that at a minimum they can ferry aircraft and fly highbirds, etc.

[flyguy06]

I did read what yousaid Eclipse, therefore the question wasnt directed toward you.

[CadetProgramGuy]

So, if I joined your squadron and had no interest in ES. If I just wanted to fly cadets on  orides and develop a Color Guard. Would I not be allowed to join your Squadron?

Yes you would be able to join my squadron.  Remember what I commented on:

ES is not required to advance through the Cadet Program.
ES is not required to advance through the Senior Member Program

However, as a squadron commander (ok Deputy Commander) I do have the option of encouraging you to attend ES training.