Along with the Magic Number, the other thing I have been doing for several years is publishing extracts of the Nat Department reports to OpCom for the upcoming N-Train. Those reports have begun to trickle in. For the most part, these reports are not on-line. Some departments may elect to publish them later, but I get them thru various and sundry back channels.

As a general rule, the reports seem a lot more boring to read then in prior years. Not a lot appears to have happened, nor does it appear that a lot is scheduled to happen.

The balance of this post will be extracts from the "O" report.

We do get at least an inkling that the DCO Revolt over the Nat power grab over qualifications worked in the case of the Watchstander (WS) qual. This is the first indication that the proposal was in fact pulled back for further study. You don't even have to read too deeply into the tea leaves to realize what happened.

quote:

The new telecommunications qualification program PQS is the subject of ongoing development, with input from the DSO-CMs and now with additional comments from a number of District Commodores.

Later in the report:

quote:

The proposed Telecommunications Qualifications program is in the process of review and update, based upon input from district staff officers, District Commodores and Area Commodores.

And just when you thought all the changes were over and done with and it was safe to go back in the water (and in the air), well it looks like Jaws (in the form of the Standardization Team) is back!

quote:

Aviation and Surface Operations Standardization Teams have been active with program revisions and updates.

But WAIT - THERE's MORE:

quote:

Updated and corrected chapters for the Operations Policy Manual are in review by all divisions.

I thought you might find this interesting. It appears under the mission statement category.

quote:

The Department of Operations will:

Realize the true multi-mission nature in Auxiliary surface and air patrols by integrating elements of Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA), Aids to Navigation (ATON), and Recreational Boating Safety (RBS) in all missions while underway or airborne.

I find that interesting. "O" is supposed to include one still-borne mission (MDA), one dead mission (ATON) and a dying mission (RBS) in all activities. I wonder who made them put that in there? I wonder if the CG's new 5 Year Strategic Plan for RBS has anything to do with that? Do you think anyone will even mention the RRBS ugly red-haired step-child in the same sentence with boats and/or planes at N-Train?

The following sentence is never good whenever it appears in any report:

quote:

Advocate good stewardship of limited resources.

Short form - prepare to be screwed - the budget cuts (fuel and other) are coming.

The next one is laughable:

quote:

Empower members at all levels to identify opportunities to advance the goals of the US Coast Guard Auxiliary.

That can be and is done now. The only problem is they don't want to empower the membership to pursue the opportunity. Up the rusty chain and into the Black Hole the opportunity goes - never to be seen or heard about again - until it makes a bullet point on some Grandees Legion of Demerit or DSA citation.

Anyone care to guess what this means?

quote:

Reinforce the responsibility of each volunteer member to honor their commitment to Coast Guard Auxiliary activities.

The following is in a section dealing with new training:

quote:

The IM Division developed a set of Training Objectives and strategies for a course for Auxiliary Sector Coordinators to be held at N-Train 2008. These sessions now include eight separate presentations or topic discussions including participation of a number of Sector Commanders and most of the new ASC appointees. These will be showcased at N-Train in January 2008.

Originally the above positions fell to the RCOs. Now we have to create even more heirarchical levels to do the same thing.

You wonder what provoked the following, these things are usually created in response to some problem not because someone just thought it was a good idea:

quote:

The Auxiliary Surface Standardization Team continues with a review of support and training material for situations where members on patrol come upon seriously injured persons in the water

Does the Aux have pilots behaving badly? The next two points would suggest that is so:

quote:

The Auxiliary Aviation Standardization Team has issued an informational bulletin on Low Level flight, informing pilots of the requirements to adhere to FAA regulations on altitudes and distances. Recipients have been informed that the waiver for low-level Coast Guard flight does not apply to Auxiliary pilots.

The AV STAN Team continues to examine the issues of retraining or requalification of flight crew who may operate below standard.

quote:

The Aviation Standardization and Surface Standardization Teams continue to provide proposed policy guidelines for the programs: a new study for better mishap reporting is now being conducted and there is an ongoing study of flight crew operations that may be below standard.

I guess some Auxie Airdales still haven't gotten the word that wave hopping and buzz bombing your friends houses and boats is no longer allowed.

Not so long ago someone asked about APRS. Although not addressed specifically, I thought the following was of interest:

quote:

Research and evaluate technology advances and determine how technologies should be integrated into Auxiliary operations.
a. Advanced technologies continue to be evaluated, but other than in telecommunications, have not been an active issue to date.

Here is a new program/acronym that I haven't heard about before:

quote:

Efforts continue to monitor and evaluate the UTLT program, with contact with the districts and areas active in the program.

... end of "O"

It's nice that the wheels are pursuing further guidelines for every contingency we may encounter during operations, once the lawyers sign off on any revisions which inhibit individual initiative I'm certain we will be informed in an official e-mail of the sort we all have learned to love. The kind where the reader is confused by the middle of the second paragraph, drooling like a hound by the end of the third and forced to delete the whole message in defense of one's sanity soon thereafter.
Micromanagement is a grand refuge for those who do not trust anyone's abilities, especially their own.

How is ATON a dead mission? Seems to me that we're still noting deficiencies every time our boats go out. Or are you just talking about the chart updating program, which from what I can tell never really got off the ground in the first place. Traditional ATON work goes on.

I was amazed when the adopt-a-chart program went away last year. We put a lot of work into that. I never considered AN "dead", maybe overlooked by auxie leadership since it's a CG program.

How is ATON a dead mission?

Start with the demise of the Adopt-A-Chart program, that was an announcement I missed.

Move on up to the fact that the last 'revision' of the ATON manual is a proofreaders copy. That is evidenced by the '????' in several other places in the text. Neither the Aux nor the CG thought the program was worth enough to even complete the revision of the manual.

Just because a few scattered Auxies report ATONs from time to time does not make it a 'live' mission. There is no current reference or training manual nor any current training material.

There are 3,669 AVs and about 400 pilots. Yet several issues a year of Up Top In Operations are dedicated to aviation every year. If the issue isn't dedicated to aviation there is usually one or two air articles in it. To be blunt that is overkill for a program that serves very few members. Have you ever seen an entire issue (just 1 - not even 1 per year) dedicated to ATON which has almost 10 times the number of qualified members as there are pilots? When was the last time there was an article about the program?

AN died as a program since it isn't sexy and Nat has no interest in it.

FWIW - AN was one of my favorite activities both as a crew member and as a coxswain. I usually ended up as one of the top reporters in my old district.

OTOH - since I stopped reporting discrepancies in May 2006, no one else in my old flotilla has. And no one cares.

quote:

Start with the demise of the Adopt-A-Chart program, that was an announcement I missed.

Actually not dead, but you've been saying for quite some time that it was still born.

quote:

Have you ever seen an entire issue (just 1 - not even 1 per year) dedicated to ATON which has almost 10 times the number of qualified members as there are pilots?

How about the February 2007 issue? It was almost all devoted to the ATON chart updating program.

In 2007 we had about 6000 ATON lead hours, which does make it one of our smaller progams, no doubt about that, even if you account for the fact that ATON hours and accomplishments are probably more under-reported in AUXDATA than most.

Actually, I think the increased emphasis from national and the CG on multi-mission patrols will probably benefit this program. As long as ATON aid verifying was only seen as something done once a year, not many people are going to show an interest in it. But, if they are continually encouraged to report all discrepancies, perhaps they will.

But, like all Aux program, YMMV.

Actually not dead, but you've been saying for quite some time that it was still born.

The demise of Adopt-A-Chart was mentioned by you (RA) and NM11AZ. I stated that I had missed that announcement. And it appears that the announcement of the demise of Adopt-A-Chart may have been premature and greatly exaggerated.


There may be a ray of hope for AN. AN was moved a while ago to "M". Jumping ahead to the "M" report, I found this about the old AN now Navigation Systems programs.

quote:

Navigation Systems Materials updates
The Navigation Systems Division has been working to review and update guides, forms and training materials for use by AN staff officers in training their team volunteers and for developing and enhancing their local Aids to Navigation programs. An “Aids to Navigation Staff Officers Guide” has been developed and is currently in trial phase in one District. In addition, review of guides, forms, training presentations, kits and handouts and background informational materials have been reviewed for current practices and accuracy for each of the five program areas – Federal Short Range Aids to Navigation, Private Aids to Navigation Program, Bridge Administration Program, NOAA Chart Updating Program and NOAA Small Craft Facility Updating Program. The goal is to replace existing outdated materials and replace with up-to-date information. Approval has been received from NOAA for the new CU and SCF guides and user forms. Additionally, the goal is to minimize the requirement for paper reports and convert as many forms as possible to on-line preparation and submission. National review and approval is pending.

STATUS: Target completion 01 June 2008

The only problem is that the current proof-copy of the manual was supposed to be finalized years ago - and wasn't. The Aux usually misses target dates by a country mile. One standing joke on the old Member Forum was that to get a nearly correctly Aux target date you had to increase the time frame by a factor of 1. So if in the case of AN, they are projecting new materials in 6 months, you might be closer to reality if you start planning on 6 years. The proof copy carries a 2003 'completion' date.

.... more on "M" coming up shortly.

Before continuing with "M", maybe a little trip down Memory Lane is called for. I started the thread The End of Trident? on 07 Nov 2007 by quoting an article in Safety Lines about changes in and the demise of many (all but 1?) Trident PQS. I got somewhat gently take to task for not getting that right.

By the time the dust settled on that we needed another 'clarification to the clarification' - which never was forthcoming.

So let us see what the "M" report to OpCom says about Trident PQSs (and find out that I was right all along):

quote:

Training Update:

The Coast Guard has updated most of their Personal Qualification Standards. ALCOASTs have specifically precluded Auxiliarists from obtaining these new qualifications except the Commercial Fishing Vessel Examiner qualification. As a result, all of the Auxiliary qualifications are being updated to align with the new Coast Guard Standards.

At the same time, additional Auxiliary-specific qualifications are being submitted to Coast Guard Headquarters for review which will expand the number of Auxiliary qualifications.

Additionally, the Introduction to Marine Safety and Environmental Protection course is being rewritten to bring it up to date with changes in the Coast Guard and Auxiliary structures. It is anticipated that this major revision will be completed by mid-2008.

In November 2007 the on-line test which met the requirements for a portion of the Marine Safety Administrative and Management PQS was pulled from the National Testing Center. It was brought to our attention that the certificate for this test was being accepted by several DIRAUX offices as a Letter of Designation. After discussion with Coast Guard Headquarters staff responsible for qualifications, it was determined that no on-line testing would be accepted as completion of any task other than educational course requirements. This ensures a uniform standard for both the Coast Guard and the Auxiliary.

quote:

Revision of Personal Qualification
Standards and other training materials

Three projects, renaming of Port State Boarding Team Assistant, update of MEES PQS and updating of PQSs to add elements related to MTSA, were put on hold at the request of CG-7411 pending finalization of changes to Coast Guard Qualification Standards. The updates to the Coast Guard standards have recently been completed. CG-7411 has provided their new PQSs for our review and modification as the new PQSs specifically state that Auxiliarists may not obtain the qualification. The only exception to that is Commercial Fishing Vessel Examiner which can be earned by Auxiliarists. The other new PQSs are being reviewed and modified as necessary for Auxiliary use.

In addition, work continues on revision of the Introduction to Marine Safety and Environmental Protection course. Now that Coast Guard Headquarters appears to have finished their realignment and naming structure changes, work can continue on this project.

STATUS: On going. Target completion for submission of PQS revisions to CG 7411 is 01 March 2008. Target completion of IMSEP for submission for approval is 01 June 2008

... more on "M" later - documenting that "M" still doesn't know that "Prevention" puts it firmly in bed with the RBS ugly red-haired step-child and not still in bed with "O" in the now misnamed OMS Directorate.

You might have highlighted this section:

quote:

At the same time, additional Auxiliary-specific qualifications are being submitted to Coast Guard Headquarters for review which will expand the number of Auxiliary qualifications.

which shows that we're probably going to end up with more opportunities than we had before. Keep in mind that in the other Trident thread that you mentioned, the guy from national said that they were working on Auxiliary versions of all the new PQSs....

which shows that we're probably going to end up with more opportunities than we had before. Keep in mind that in the other Trident thread that you mentioned, the guy from national said that they were working on Auxiliary versions of all the new PQSs....

That stuff is 'sizzle' or 'a hope and a prayer'. Going back over the years there were lots of 'opportunities' and things 'submitted to CG HQ' that never saw the light of day.

A lot of members are still waiting for those alleged 'open doors and windows' the 'P-thing that cannot be mentioned' were supposed to open and didn't.

Even many of the now demised Trident PQSs were vaporware in that they existed on paper but you couldn't get the training for them.

So with 1 exception, CFVE, the Trident PQSs are dead in the water. Promises of futures are just that - promises - that may never be kept.

No, we just aren't allowed to get the A/D versions of the PQS's which not many people got anyways due to the training requirements for resident courses. We can still earn all the AUX PQS's that we want to work towards.

Hmm, I guess the recent surge of excitement in my flotilla regarding the Trident program is based on some zombie juice since FL says the program is dead.

Like any augmentation program, training for the specific job is based on the needs of the CG. If they don't need port state control folks in Missouri they aren't going to train them there. Or, if your flotilla is 300 miles from the nearest CG unit you're probably not going to have a lot of opportunities to participate.

It seems to me that where the CG needs the help, they've been getting it, which is the way it should work.

I think I figured out the criteria for declaring a program "dead".
National hasn't revised the paperwork for at least 2 months.

quote:

Originally posted by NM11AZ:
I think I figured out the criteria for declaring a program "dead".
National hasn't revised the paperwork for at least 2 months.

Or it hasn't been castigated on this board in two days. I can't believe what a short time frame it took you guys to recap all the cr*p that we have been talking about for decades. Does this mean that someone up the line has finally begun to notice what we have been trying to tell them for years? Air program participants need oversight? I sang that song until the DCO got tired of it and let them back door me out of the program. Boat crew has no idea what they are doing, and those that do have no concept of standardization? Wow! I could be looking at my own Cliff Notes. And honoring committments to the Coast Guard? Sorry, but my committments are voluntary, and if they don't treat me right I can un-volunteer. Or more like my style, partially un-volunteer; barely keeping the qualifications current in the hope that it miraculously gets better.

And they say the Auxiliary doesn't have traditions, Hah!

... more on "M" later - documenting that "M" still doesn't know that "Prevention" puts it firmly in bed with the RBS ugly red-haired step-child and not still in bed with "O" in the now misnamed OMS Directorate.

First, let us take a look at USCG HQ organization. This is what "M" claims to be aligned to, with only a few little details to iron out. As will become blatantly obvious - "M" isn't even close.

Notice the USCG HQ org CG-53 Director of Response Policy. Notice Incident Management is 'in there'. This was recently moved from Auxie "M" to Auxie "O". That was the Right Thing to do. Also in there is SAR. This is the proper place for Auxie "O" to align to.

But it isn't the proper place for Auxie "M" - nothing in CG-53 is related to "M". Therefore Auxie "O" and Auxie "M" don't belong together. So where does Auxie "M" belong and with whom does it belong? For that matter Auxie "M" has claimed the Prevention Banner but is it all of Prevention? Who else should be sharing that banner on the Auxie side and therefore what Auxie Departments should be in the same Prevention Directorate?

We all know the answer - it is the Ugly Red-haired Step-Child RBS that is should be in the same Auxie Directorate with Auxie "M". They have the same 'home' in CG HQ.

Take a look at Director of Prevention Policy (CG-54). In there is Waterways Management which includes Auxie AN (now called Navigation systems and part of Auxie "M"). RBS is in there as a joint RBS/DirAux office. Also clearly in there is all of the commercial vessel examination program of "M". Also in there is Port and Facilities - which includes many of the "M" Trident PQS (defunct for the moment). So almost all of "M" is in the Prevention Directorate of CGHQ - with RBS.

So why does Auxie "M" insist it is the only part of Auxie "Prevention" and still insist it belongs in the same Auxie Directorate with "O" and not with the Ugly Red-haired Step-Child RBS/

Here are "M"s statements on its alleged completed realignment from its report to Opcom for N-Train.

From 2007 Accomphishments (they think they are done):

quote:

Department realignment wraps up

From CY08 Projects (they think all they have to is rename the misaligned deck chairs on the Auxtanic):

quote:

Complete Realignment project with renaming of Department and Staff Officers

"M" even leaves a tell-tale that they know they are really misaligned. This is the Mission Statement of Auxie "M":

quote:

The Prevention (Marine Safety) Department is responsible for the planning and administration of Auxiliary programs to support the Coast Guard's Operations (Prevention CG-54) Directorate's Programs. This includes support for such things as: port safety and security compliance inspections, commercial vessel safety and security compliance inspections (Uninspected Tow Vessel, Uninspected Passenger Vessel, Commercial Fishing Vessel Examinations and other Foreign and Domestic Vessels), container inspection assistance, mariner licensing/documentation/course audits, waterways management (including navigation systems [ATONs] and bridges), America’s Waterways Watch/Environmental Education (Sea Partners) outreach and Maritime Information System Law Enforcement (MISLE) support.

The only problem with that statement is that "Coast Guard's Operations (Prevention CG-54) Directorate's Programs" is not that. "Operations" does not appear in its official title. By 'getting the title wrong" (probably on purpose) "M" tries to lay its claim to being part of OMS. But the real title of CG-54 (which includes RBS) is "Director of Prevention Policy". Nor does any major sub-office of CG-54 have the word "operations" in its title.

One statement under "Short Term Goasl" is laughable:

quote:

Complete realignment the Operations Directorate (“M” and “O” Departments) to better enable linking of Auxiliary missions to counterpart Coast Guard objectives and to enhance understanding of Auxiliary missions and operations by Coast Guard commands.

Now "M" gets the name of the Directorate wrong. As seen above "M" and "O" do not belong in the same directorate and the CG will never understand Auxie 'missions and operations' until the Aux understands how it is supposed to be organized. "M" is not an Operations department - it is a Prevention Department with RBS.

Here is another funny:

quote:

Additionally, the Introduction to Marine Safety and Environmental Protection course is being rewritten to bring it up to date with changes in the Coast Guard and Auxiliary structures. It is anticipated that this major revision will be completed by mid-2008.

So the aux is going to bring a course up-to-date about Aux structure when it doesn't even follow the structure it should.

Under "Realignment" "M" said this:

quote:

2007 saw the Marine Safety (Prevention) and Operations (Response) Departments realign to mirror Coast Guard Headquarters structure by moving Aids to Navigation from Operations (Response) to Marine Safety (Prevention) and Incident Management from Marine Safety (Prevention) to Operations (Response). Additionally, the Marine Safety (Prevention) Department underwent reorganization at the same time. Several Divisions were renamed to match the Coast Guard Headquarters structure and two divisions (Environmental Protection and America’s Waterway Watch) were combined into a Prevention Outreach Division.

The remaining items in this project include the final renaming of the Department and Staff Officer positions. This will remain open pending action by the Board.

So they tinkered with a few trees and missed the forest - "M" does not belong in the same directorate with "O" - if the Aux is going to claim it is following CG HQ organization.

As a follow-on to the above post, the following are some further items because of "M"s misaligned realignment:

quote:

Department Renaming

In order to mirror the naming structure of Coast Guard Active Duty Commands it was proposed to rename the Operations Department to the Response Department with the designator “R” and the Marine Safety Department to the Prevention Department with the designator “P.” This would necessitate changing the designator for the Personnel Services Department, currently using the “P” designator. An appropriate new designator for that department could be “H” for Human Resources. This has the benefit of matching the designator for the Coast Guard department with similar functions.

Impact

The proposal to rename the Departments, if approved, would result in limited or no financial impact upon the Auxiliary. After discussion with Bob Platt, the “cost” for AUXDATA renaming would be an Auxiliarist’s time to enter the new names. Websites and other documents would need to be updated.
.

Renaming of the Operations Department to the Response Department and the Marine Safety Department to the Prevention Department will have some impacts at all levels. Staff officer designations will need to be changed at the Flotilla, Division and District levels. It is recommended that the Operations Staff Officers be renamed Staff Officers for Response Operations with the designator RO (e.g. FSO-RO), and that Communications (CM) staff officers would be re-designated Telecommunications (TC). It is further recommended the Staff Officers for Marine Safety be renamed Staff Officers for Prevention with the designator PN (e.g. FSO-PN).

STATUS: Pending approval

Since it should be painfully obvious by now that Prevention is the old MS and all of RBS then renaming the old FSO/SO/DSO MS to PN is a fraud. The only Auxie officers who should be named PN are the NADCO in charge of a correctly aligned Prevention Directorate (RBS plus old MS) and the equivalent "Chief" at the district level. "MS" at the flotilla and division level is still "MS" since there is no equivalent structure at the division and flotilla level that incorporates both old "MS" and RBS.

quote:

Renaming of Aids to Navigation (AN) Staff officers to Navigation Services (NS)
It is requested that the current Aids to Navigation (AN) title for staff officers be changed to Navigation Systems (NS) to better reflect the expanded opportunities for Auxiliary involvement in the Coast Guard Navigation Systems program area. Activities included by the Coast Guard under Navigation Systems include visual navigation systems, vessel traffic services, E-navigation and Navigation Standards.

Impact:

The proposal to rename the Staff Officers, if approved, would result in limited or no financial impact upon the Auxiliary. After discussion with Bob Platt, the “cost” for AUXDATA renaming would be an Auxiliarist’s time to enter the new names. Websites and other documents would need to be updated.

ACTION REQUESTED: Approval

Notice in the cost discussion the only 'cost' is what it will cost Nat. No consideration is given that there is a time cost to every flotilla, division and district to change newsletters, web sites and various and sundry other items where these titles and acronyms appear.

So while "M" refuses to move into the Directorate it should be in - it wants the whole organization to go thru a massive title/acronym change - just so it can play "monkey see, monkey do" with the CG - and get it wrong in the end anyway.

And if the renaming does happen - how many years do you think it will be before all flotilla newsletters and web sites are 'compliant'. Nat can mandate but it cannot make a FSO-CS or FSO-PB change anything.

Since "O" and "M" are incapable of making decisions, Miss Moneypenny and I are off to Spain for the weekend. Cheerio, 009