quote:

Originally posted by JasonWilsonAUX:

quote:

Only those who might be involved in emergency response, which few Auxies are, had to be.

quote:

Most boat crew will never use them in their entire career.

You're making dangerous assumptions there even if true. EVERY boat crew person runs the chance of being called out to or directly involved in an emergency, doesn't matter where you are or what you do.

The fact that most boat crew members may never do something:
1.) Does not eliminate that possibility that they may and
2.) Only increases their need for regular refresher.

If someone dies because you bungled something, "Oh, well we don't normally do that" isn't going to cut it.

I don't think anyone will die if my ICS isn't current. Nor do I think that a 5 year requal on NAVRULES will save anyone. Being current on First Aid might help but nody gets an attaboy if we are current!!

FL, DHS is making everyone involved in emergency response use ICS, including its premier organization, the Coast Guard. They put the requirement on the CG, and since we're part of CG's umbrella, we have to do it too.

Regarding requalification, I'm sort of surprised you don't think it is necessary given your regular harping about "fog a mirror" types. Should we just assume that a coxswain who got qualified 10 years ago still knows how to do everything they are supposed to know, including those skills that they rarely use? People forgot stuff. Qualified people who rarely actually do the job are not going to be as good at it as others. The only way to ensure they really can do the job, is to actually watch them do the job.

DHS is making everyone involved in emergency response use ICS, including its premier organization, the Coast Guard.

First, of all NACO went on record in the Proceedings of the USNI and stated the Aux is not a first response organization. Therefore there is no need for every Auxie to have ICS. You have not cited the requirement that every Auxie must have ICS just because they are an Auxie.

Second even among boat crews not only will most never even get close to an emergency response, many will refuse to respond. Requiring members to take courses they will never need and/or use shows tremendous disregard for the member and his time. But then if you are a squirrel in cubicle warren you don't care about that - just get the box checked off.

Regarding requalification, I'm sort of surprised you don't think it is necessary given your regular harping about "fog a mirror" types.

One has nothing to do with the other. Requiring useless requals from active members is one sure way to turn them inactive. I have no problem with reasonable minimum underway time, teaching time etc. That is where the hull meets the water and if someone knows their stuff or not.

And we don't even use that test well. In my old AOR, one coxswain busted 5 outboard props in under 2 years. He wasn't on any cases, just driving around. The CO got fed up and wanted to pull his qual and not give him orders. The Aux B&Med and the CO was forced by the PTB to keep giving the Auxie orders. As a compromise, the station no longer had to replace his props which he kept busting. He should have had his qual pulled. Rogue coxswains of various stripes are allowed to continue to patrol etc. But lord help you if you blow a towing evolution once every 3 years - even if it is the only time you have to do it. Kiss your qual good-bye.

Should we just assume that a coxswain who got qualified 10 years ago still knows how to do everything they are supposed to know, including those skills that they rarely use?


Yes, since the Aux assumes that now. Go thru the coxswain task guide. The vast majority of the tasks are never tested in a requal. The Aux just assumes the coxswain knows how to do those things. They test towing - something less and less Auxies do every year.

My old flotillas has a major port in its area. Some critical skills that might be worth having for the "observe and report" role but aren't tested at all:

1. International Code of Signals
2. Foreign flags
3. Load lines

All 3 of those are more important to know, as well as the already mentioned pollution response then towing ever will be. The Aux and the CG are still stuck back in 1984 and the threatened loss of towing. So they invented the BCQP and then wiped out the need for it by encouraging commercial salvors and then the "No Towing" Policy. But they never revised the BCQP since that would amount to admitting they made a mistake.

Nor do I think that a 5 year requal on NAVRULES will save anyone.

That goes double for the Inland Only coxswains who have to requal on the international rules.

Great discussion folks, Thanks for participating!

FL your comments were as close to a real vision of the Auxiliary as I have seen here.

Here's what should scare you folks:

That NACO had to ask what's wrong. That is a perfect example of how completely disconnected the national senior staff is from the reality of the Auxiliary. It precisely explains why the top-down planning that originates there, never works in the real Auxiliary world.

And..... That the NACO asked for feedback all the way down to the deckplate and 99.9% of the deckplate never heard a word about it. That's our vaunted Chain of Communications in action.

So where do you think NACO ultimately received his requested feedback and suggestions from? From the disconnected, sycophantic group that strives for recognition, that's who. And remember it's that feedback and suggestion pool from which NACO and staff will make even more rules and plans for us all.

So no surprises there!

quote:

First, of all NACO went on record in the Proceedings of the USNI and stated the Aux is not a first response organization. Therefore there is no need for every Auxie to have ICS.

When we do SAR -- that is first response. But, you don't have to be a first responder to need to use ICS -- show up 5 days after the hurricane and the operation will still be being conducted under the ICS system.

quote:

You have not cited the requirement that every Auxie must have ICS just because they are an Auxie.

Why would I cite such a requirement? It doesn't exist. Only ops folks, some ops-related staff officers, and various parts of the leadership have to meet ICS requirements as far as I know.

quote:

Requiring useless requals from active members is one sure way to turn them inactive.

So, your contention is that every single thing that people have to demonstrate to requal is useless and therefore it was useless to make them learn it in the first place?

All I said was that some sort of re-cert process is needed. I'm not defending this particular set of tasks or the time schedule. Plenty of room to argue about those, but frankly, I don't care much about the details since every person should be able to demonstrate those qualities at a drop of a hat so recert shouldn't be any issue in the first place whether you're doing 3 tasks or all of them.

quote:

Go thru the coxswain task guide. The vast majority of the tasks are never tested in a requal.

Pick a side. You're complaining about doing some tasks but say that the whole process is worthless because we're not testing them all. Can't have it both ways.

When we do SAR -- that is first response.

NACO's comments were clearly about emergency/disaster response. ICS is not used by the CG in simple SAR.

Why would I cite such a requirement? It doesn't exist.

Your claim was that neither the CG nor the Aux was to blame for the ICS requirement since it originated above them. Since you now admit there is no such external source to cite, the blame for the overbroad ICS requirement falls back on the CG and the Aux.

So, your contention is that every single thing that people have to demonstrate to requal is useless and therefore it was useless to make them learn it in the first place?

That is pretty much true. Boat crews are about the only group that has to 'prove' they can do something outside of just performing the mission. All of the RBS quals are 'proved' by doing the minimum number of hours. The only thing Air Crews have to prove is that they can swim and get in a raft. The swim test is a disguised physical fitness test (that is often cheated on) and not any test of skills or knowledge.

So why is the BCQP unique - other then trying to justify an erroneous 24 year old policy?

Pick a side. You're complaining about doing some tasks but say that the whole process is worthless because we're not testing them all. Can't have it both ways.

Calm down. Take a deep breath and try to follow the discussion - especially since the remark of mine you are criticizing is pointing out the flaw in an earlier statement you made.

This was your first remark (which I highlighted when I quoted it).

Should we just assume that a coxswain who got qualified 10 years ago still knows how to do everything they are supposed to know, including those skills that they rarely use?

I responded:

Yes, since the Aux assumes that now. Go thru the coxswain task guide. The vast majority of the tasks are never tested in a requal. The Aux just assumes the coxswain knows how to do those things. They test towing - something less and less Auxies do every year.

See how that works. You are trying to justify the requal based on the fact coxswains need to prove they can still tow because it was among the things they had to do to qualfiy. I merely pointed out that the vast majority of tasks that coxswains must prove they know to qualify are never tested on again - ever. Which sort of destroys your arguement that coxswains need to prove towing ability - which most will never do. What makes the unused by most Auxies towing ability the skill to test for when the majority of the other skills are never tested - nor should they be. I also pointed out that crticial skills for the 'observe and report' mission are not part of the qualification set nor are they part of the requal process.

BTW - locally the USPS tows more in a year then the Aux does in a decade (or longer). They don't train on it, they don't practice it and they don't have to qualify on it.

Sorry, but I don't admit anything. You drastically misunderstood what I said and asked for a citation requiring all Auxies to do ICS, which I never said was the case. But, please refer to the multiple pages of NIMS-related documents on the DHS web site for requirements for federal agencies, including DHS to use NIMS and ICS. You said that I claimed that all Auxies had to do it and I never said that.

quote:

The only thing Air Crews have to prove is that they can swim and get in a raft

I was less than impressed with the Aux aircrew training program when I joined and while they seemed to have made some headway with the new manual, I am disappointed if they in fact don't have any more of a recertification process than that. However, the boatcrew program shouldn't be diminished to match the aircrew, the aircrew program should be augmented to match the boatcrew.

quote:

Which sort of destroys your arguement that coxswains need to prove towing ability

Where have I defended a towing requirement for recert? At least twice this week I've said that a recert program is necessary, but haven't said anything about exactly which tasks should be re-tested and each time I said that this was a good subject for debate.

the aircrew program should be augmented to match the boatcrew.

Sure - let's have more useless testing. I did forget, air crews have to participate in one water egress drill (done on land) each year. It isn't graded. Did you know that in every Aux crash/landing at sea, all the occupants of the plane died on impact? I'm sure their ghosts appreciated knowing how to egress.

Air crew and observers get tested on every mission - by the pilot. If he doesn't like the way you handle front seat duties (mostly comms) you get relegated to the rear seats. Screw that up and you don't fly anymore. And the pilots do tell each other who the bad crew are. Very simple working system for the air crews - no additional BS requal needed.

The FAA has its own little method to make sure pilots can still fly. There might be a biannual Auxie flight check for pilots - since I wasn't a pilot I'm not certain. But like air crew, pilots are tested on every mission - by the crew. Screw up and you will find yourself sans crew - at least good crew. And like the pilots, the crews talk to each other - the hot dogs and rogues are well known to the crews. It was well known by the air crews that the pilot who killed his crew and himself off Miami was just a disaster waiting to happen.

quote:

It was well known by the air crews that the pilot who killed his crew and himself off Miami was just a disaster waiting to happen.

Sort of proves that what you're advocating doesn't actually work very well.

Sort of proves that what you're advocating doesn't actually work very well.

That remark shows your ignorance of that accident. It proves the fallacy of your system. You see the dead pilot was the Air Station AAC (Auxiliary Air Coordinator). He scheduled all flights, giving himself priority, oversaw the training sessions which he always passed and was best buds with the air hierarchy - gold and silver. The one member who dared to try and do something about it, SkyRay, got run out of the air program and is blackballed to this day.

The only people effected by useless requal programs are those pilots and crew who are not in the loop or self-congratualtory circle jerk.

Even after that accident, I personnally saw his replacement AAC (who is no longer in the Aux for other reasons) cheat on the swim test by only doing 2 of the 3 laps. Other members of the air leadership cheated that way or other ways on the swim test (bottom bouncing on the shallow end). When other members present *****ed about it to the then DSO-AV who was there and witnessed it - nothing was done.

If you remember all the way back to the original Blue Light Special discussion here - a poster named AuxMan was trumpeting the fact that in the northern part of D7 a DCP could 'give the word' to a QE and the member would never pass a QE session. In my old AOR, they didn't do that, they just cancelled the session the unwanted member was supposed to be at and then rescheduled it without telling him - sometimes on the same day.

The burden of proof of the necessity of the 3 year requal is on the Aux and CG. Where are the accident stats that justify the change to 3 year? Where are the accident stats that even show a requal is necessary?

I usually don't bet but if they would publish the accident stats with some background on them - I would bet that the greatest number of accidents are caused by the Rogue Coxswains running at excessive speed. And no 3 or 5 year requal is going to stop them.

Discussing the BCQP has been fun but it has also taken us off topic - maybe it warrants its own thread (again).

To return to the topic - there is a policy/issue that I mentioned earlier, I believe it underlies most of the other problems. The policy has no name so I called it the Auxiliary of One, adopting the Army slogan. I first began writing about this in 2006. The policy itself dates back to 1995. What follows are the historic announcements of the policy. Don't kid yourself - this is still official policy.

Navigator Fall Issue 1995, pages 1-2, "New Horizons For The Auxiliary" by NACO Peter Melera

quote:

I strongly believe that it is time to direct our thinking away from the burdensome idea that each of us is required to participate in all of the traditional mission areas that have long been associated with the Auxiliary. The reality is that we are no longer a four cornerstone organization! We are, instead, a well trained volunteer force, founded upon the basic tenets of Fellowship, that provides support to the Coast Guard across the broad spectrum of its civil functions. Recreational Boating Safety (RBS) is but one of those functions, and there should be no need for any one of us to feel the need to focus upon those mission areas. Moreover, the requirements of AMOS and its predecessor GAP, that have historically driven us to perform in those mission areas, often solely for the sake of an award must be changed.

quote:

In today's Auxiliary, each of us should feel free to choose from the many missions areas that are being made avialable to us. Do what you enjoy doing! And do it well! That is the key to our future success. In fact, you have been telling the leadership just that for the past decade. The numbers prove it. During the past ten years, our productivity in the cornerstone areas has been flat, while the recorded hours of operational support to the Coast Guard has increased over 300% Does that mean we are going to give up on RBS as a major part of our mission responsibility? Absolutely not! Rather, it means that if you want to do RBS missions such as PE, VE, and the like, do them! But if you do not want to do those missions, then get involved with ATON patrols, harbor safety patrols, marine environmental pollution activities, radio watchstanding, and the vast number of other things that your fellow Auxiliarists are doing somewhere across the country even as you read this article! And do so with the knowledge that you are not compromising your Flotilla's ability to win an award!

BTW - membership numbers continued to decline even in the Do Your Own Thing - Auxiliary of One.

Navigator, Fall Issue 1995, "Washington Letter: Pick and Choose - Your Choice" by Capt Al Sarra, ChDirAux (same issue as above)

quote:

The promulgation of the Auxiliary Business Description and Direction (ABD&D) to every active duty unit commander as well as every member of the Auxiliary puts each of you on a par with the decision makers on the active duty side of the house. You are truely managers of your own individual destiny. By changing the way in which we focus on desired mission accomplishment and the way we identify goals and objectives, we have provided each individual member with the opportunity to pick and choose and select the most interesting elements from this shopping list of potential areas of endeavour.

quote:

Commodore Dick Miler, Chairman of the Horizons Committee, introduced a new way of looking at our AMOS objectives during his presentation at the National Conference. He discussed the major shift in policy which divorces the awards system from our goal development. I think you will really appreciate the fact that, as of 1 January 1996, you will no longer be driven to achieve certain artificial goals in order to support your Flotilla's effort to earn one or more of the AMOS ribbons.

quote:

As your National Commodore indicates in his article on page one, you will be free to pick and choose from among the many authorized missions. You will be able to concentrate on those program areas which really hold your interest - those areas where you derive real satisfaction from your accomplishments - without that nagging feeling you are letting the Flotilla down because your interest does not match up with their assigned AMOS objective.

quote:

We have people looking at the ABD&D and asking how we can expect the Auxiliary to accomplish all the new things that we are now asking them to do. That question is based on false assumptions. We don't expect EVERYBODY to participate in EVERYTHING. What we do expect is that everybody will participate only where they feel they can be most effective and only where they derive the most satisfaction. We want every member of the Auxiliary to be able to freely "just say no" when the time isn't there, when the interest isn't there or when the talent isn't there.

quote:

What do we expect? We expect you to do what you enjoy. We expect you tob enjoy what you do. And at the end of the day, we expect you to take home a well deserved sense of satisfaction, knowing that you have made a positive contribution on behalf of the Coast Guard Auxiliary. That's all we expect. Nothing more.

To bring the historic documents up-to-date:

Source: United States Coast Guard Auxiliary
National Department of Personnel
OPCOM Report, August, 2007
Executive Summary (second paragraph)

quote:

In support of these efforts, the Department of Personnel has debuted a new type of campaign known as the “... Campaign.” The focus of the campaign is different from what has been done in the past in that it focuses less on volunteer service and the Auxiliary ties to the Coast Guard and more on personal fulfillment of the prospective member. It was designed with the Boomer demographic in mind.

The combined effect of all those statements can be mind boggling. The member is 'free to pick and choose' but the flotilla gets to decide what missions it will specialize in - but not to worry since the member is the master of his own destiny. But what happens when the member picks something the flotilla has no interest in. The member as his own master then has to run the gaunlet trying to figure out how to get trained. They probably quit in a few years in frustration.

Flotillas are still supposed to have goals but there is no incentive for any individual member to help the flotilla achieve them. After all, the member can pick and choose in the Aux of One.

If members are told they are free to do what they enjoy and nothing more, then why is it any surprise that members feel free to opt out of PSI policies, ICS courses and any other imposed requirement that impinges on their enjoyment. Particularly when those requirements are never justified to the member they are being imposed on.

There is no sense of sacrifice or even committment to the organization in either the NACO or ChDirAux statements. Official policy is that the organization exists to meet the individual wish fulfillment of the member with no concommittment sense of obligation on the part of the member.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: FL51D7,

This document seens to lay out the reasoning pretty well.

quote:

The success of the training, qualification and certification processes was challenged. Field level input suggested that there are many certified members who can no longer perform the skills tested during their initial qualification process. This skill deterioration was felt to substantially undermine the confidence that the CG has in the Auxiliary program.

By the way the same program that changed the recert from 5 yr to 3 yrs also eliminated the annual tasks. Seems like a fair trade off to me and hardly the burden you're trying to make it out to be.

Remember the opening post?

quote:

NACO states: fewer of our members are obtaining or retaining quals. We continue to lose boat crew, coxswains, co-pilots, first pilots, aircraft commanders and both surface and air facilities.We are losing instructors and fewer members are choosing to become certified in any discipline. Why? How do we fix the situation?

You should read D14s answer to that question. It also looks like they have jettisoned the idea of an Auxiliary of One overboard. This is from the Pacific Breeze April 2008. It is from the front page article "ARE YOU A MEMBER OR JUST A NAME ON THE ROSTER?"

quote:

If your answer is "I'm just a name on the roster" then maybe you should give serious consideration to submitting your request for disenrollment rather than keep on paying your dues and taking up space on the membership roster. The Auxiliary is going through some very tough times and needs all the active members it can get. Those who pledge to provide support and then do not live up to their promises become a major part of the problem. Some members have not attended a meeting or participated in any Flotilla activities for years.

So at least one district has decided that the fog-a-mirror are just not worth having, good-bye and good riddance in D14, pony up or move on out.

I wonder if any other district will follow suit?

And the hits just keep on coming. This is from Buoy 13 Spring 2008. It is in the page 4 article from DirAux13.

quote:

According to Coast Guard statistics the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary lost 7,433 of its members or one out of every five volunteers between the years 2003 and 2007! This withering trend is especially disturbing when one considers that, during the same time frame, The Corporation for National and Community Service report significant demographic increases in volunteerism…

quote:

Yes, Auxiliarists have left the service (from 2003 to 2007) at approximately the same rates as DOD service members who had routinely served in hostile and deadly conditions.

quote:

Similarly, our own Auxiliary attrition rate (and its corresponding mission degradation) should be one of the most important issues our Auxiliary and active duty membership need to consider.

With attrition rates like that is it any surprise that REYR rates and never qualified rates are up? Where do you think the mid-level members, who usually doing the mentoring are? They exited stage left.

Attended this year's conference and introduced myself to a young man that was sitting by himself on "Fun Nght." He told me he was a new FC and I told him I owned an OPFAC. He then asked, "What is an OPFAC?" Signs of the times?

Well heck, you can't blame him. After all, "OPFAC" doesn't appear in the New Member Handbook, and only "operational facility" appears in the APC Guide book.

That flotilla must be really hard up to have an FC that does not know what an OPFAC is. I am betting the flotilla exists only on paper and in some Division Captain's mind.