From the "Bertha" thread I wrote:

quote:

Try and figure out why the Aux was heavily involved in the Great Floods of 1993, earning a CG MTC for the effort, while this year - nit, nada, nothing.

From other threads and general news, we know that CAP, CAP Cadets, ARRL/ARES and other volunteers were 'invited to the party' while the Aux was excluded.

In the same thread CGSTAFF wrote:

quote:

Now - please don't regale me with history lessons of how others have screwed things up to the present. if that is the case then we need to get over that past and start to focus on how we can be the best lifesaving organization out there. Any and all other talk just takes away from what we could and should be.

Dispite his objections, a little history is necessary since he doesn't realize what even one incident can do to the Aux. For example:

1. Two boat crew deaths during the same 'rescue' in TX and possbily another in CA, lead to the prohibition on entering the water.

2. A fatal air crash shut down the entire Air program in D7 for a year and lead to drastic changes in the Air program nationwide.

3. A engine fire, with an Admiral aboard, is what lead to the change in maintenance periods of Aux aircraft. That lead to a dramatic decline in the number of aircraft and qualified air personnel. I heard a rumor that there were also 2 other non-fatal, non-crash 'incidents' that factored into this but the person who told me has been unable to confirm his own info.

In speaking with another member, who has much more experience in this area then me, figures it takes about a year for a non-fatal incident to make its way into policy. That is mostly because it takes time for the DirAuxs to spread the word and reach a consensus.

An incident that impacts a Coasties career (or just ticks him off) may have a long lasting and even unknown impact as that Coasties moves from station to station (and up the promotion ladder). He/she may also influence other Coasties who may already have a neutral to negitive opinion of the Aux.

So you cannot totally downplay history. OTOH, since the Aux cannot (or will not) police the rogues from its ranks there isn't much the Aux can do to fix that part of the problem. Once an incident happens the damage is already done.

So what else may be in play.

To be continued .....

Assume for the sake of discussion that the Aux eliminated all rogues from its ranks. What else is behind the Aux's departure from the ranks of first responders?

1. The National leadership does not endorse the role. NACO is on record in the Proceedings of the US Naval Institute as stating the Aux is not a first responder agency and has no plans on becoming one. So don't expect much movement until the National leadership changes its tune.

BTW - there are also many Auxies, including some here, who also do not believe the Aux should be first responders. They see it, with quite a bit of justification, as diluting what resources the Aux does have and causing a lack of focus on the Aux's prime missions.

2. Increasing professionalism in emergency response. Since the 1993 floods there has been an accelerating trend to professionalize various aspects of emergency response. Coming soon will be credentialization to prove that professionalism.

The Aux is well off the mark in meeting any of the proposed credentials in emergency response for its supposed areas of expertise, mostly SAR, Comms and aviation.

So other then brute force labor or as hidden assets behind the CG, the Aux does not fit into any ICS resource type.

3. Reluctance to outright refusal on the part of most Auxies to meet higher standards. The Sainted One, Capt Kern, remarked on this long ago. Simply put - most Auxies will not meet any additional requirements that would allow the Aux to meet NIMS/ICS Resource typing. The boat crews have shown by non-involvement that by-and-large they could care less about higher standards via ISAR/NSAR or the Excellence In Ops program.

If the Aux really wants a first response capability then it may have to revert back to the original idea behind the AuxOps program (here comes that history again). Originally AuxOps was not an individual qualification. It was a group qualification. An individual after meeting high standards would be accepted into an AuxOps group, which was almost always a division level group. The AuxOps groups were at division since in most cases there were not enough interested Auxies in a flotilla to support one. And it was a lack of interest even at the divsion level that lead to a demise of the group concept and the creation of the individual AuxOp program (see Tilley book for details).

With one failed implementation the Aux would need to do significant reserch and trial-and-error to make it work, but such groups do work.

The Red Cross uses specially designated 'flying squads' as part of its response capability. Another example is the ARRL/ARES ARESMAT organization. So it is doable. But first the Aux needs to answer the question - should it be doing first response at all.

quote:

the Aux cannot (or will not) police...its ranks

I hear the flyboys down in 1SR have a new annual requirement due to a lack of leadership: The Annual Air Safety Stand Down

The word is this is due to them having 7 major "incidents" over a 16 month period.

I don't know but if that were a publicly traded company, the CEO would have been ousted after the first incident, let alone being able to stay on after a second, third, forth, fifth, sixth and seventh one.

Who's running the show down there and why is he being protected? 7 major incidents in 16 months sounds like a complete lack of leadership. So instead of getting rid of this so-called leader, they put the blame on everyone and institute another requirement.

Assuming your info is correct (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) then this is not good for the Aux, long or short term. And it does play into why the Aux is not a first responder.

Who's running the show down there and why is he being protected?

You can find the DCO here.

His name may ring a bell because he is the only announced candidate for the national office of ARCO-AE. Except for a very unlikely and hard to accomplish floor challenge - he is, for all intents and purposes - already elected ARCO-AE.

He is also the one who allowed his DSO-PA to pursue a private vendetta against CervantesFan and compel his resignation from the Aux. There is more then a hint of nepotism in his staff appointments. He is also head of the district where Blue Light Specials run supreme, Auxies improperly handle firearms and the DirAux also allowed CervantesFan to swing in the breeze although the project he got in trouble for he was running for her and at her request.

Is this any way to run an Auxiliary?

You bet it ain't but you are stuck with him and at national for at least the next 2 years. It could be 4 if he eventually makes NAVCO and 8 if he makes NACO since NIPCO automatically follows that.

I think he's the guy in charge of us all. Isn't there someone just in charge of the flyboys? Can't remember his name but the word is he falls asleep all the time when flying and is also the reason the flyboys have this new annual requirement to fulfill each year. He was (still is?) at the helm while all these major incidents were happening. Fine example of leadership

Isn't there someone just in charge of the flyboys?

That would be the DSO-AV. You can find his name and pix on the staff page.

he falls asleep all the time when flying

That isn't as bad as it sounds. It is why gawd invented autopilot. Turn it on and go to sleep. Pray your air crew has enough situational awareness to wake you up in time to land or before you run out of gas or run into restricted air space.

When you get caught, use your exalted position in the Aux to blame your crew for not learning their proper tasks (see above).

Thanks for the link. Click on the word "Aviation" and you get the following job description:

"District Staff Officer, Aviation
DSO-AV

The DSO-AV plays a key role in the safe and conscientious conduct of Air operations in the District. The DSO-AV is responsible for the following duties.

1. Provide program management to the District's Air Operations program, including all patrols and logistics flights.

2. Ensure (with the District Bridge and DIRAUX) that the District's air operations are being conducted safely, with good judgment and conformance to the Coast Guard Auxiliary Air Operations Training Text and the Auxiliary Operations Policy Manual.

3. Establish air operations goals and objectives (in conjunction with local CG units or Air Stations as appropriate). Develop and work an operating plan that details how the operational goals will be met.

4. In conjunction with the DVC-OA review the currency of all pilots, crew and observers and maintain a current roster of all aircraft.

5. Provide counsel to the District Bridge on all aviation matters.

6. Respond to and provide information and input from the field as requested by the National Operations Staff.

7. Ensure that appropriate operational aviation safety training is being conducted and that the annual aviation workshop is conducted.

8. Other duties as requested/assigned."

Seems like the DSO-AV at the time of these major incidents (same guy?) was/is failing in his responsibilities and duties.

Any way of finding out how long the current DSO-AV has held that position?

Any way of finding out how long the current DSO-AV has held that position?

You might try finding back issues of your district newsletter. They usually list who the DSOs are/were.

You might get a kick out of this. I did a google search to try and find out. I stumbled on this picture from the USCG Visual Information Gallery.

How do you like the rather dashing and totally unauthorized white turtleneck - nice example for the DSO-AV - don't you think?

It is also debatable whether his name tag is correct. The AuxMan states that a cloth name tag must be "a dark cloth background, blue or black". The blue in the picture looks very 'bright' and not 'dark' to me.

Update

I missed this the first time around. His officer insignia are also incorrect, improper and illegal. They may even be fattening. . The AuxMan bars home manufacture and you are only authorized to buy insignia from authorized sources. Cloth officer insignia have never been available from an authorized source. Therefore the DSO either improperly home brewed them or bought them from an unauthorized source.

What was it the Sainted One said, oh yeah

quote:

Discipline starts at the top.

And it looks like at the top of AuxAir1SR there is no discipline. So why is anyone surprised at the accidents and safety stand-down?

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

quote:

I missed this the first time around. His officer insignia are also incorrect, improper and illegal. They may even be fattening. . The AuxMan bars home manufacture and you are only authorized to buy insignia from authorized sources. Cloth officer insignia have never been available from an authorized source. Therefore the DSO either improperly home brewed them or bought them from an unauthorized source.

His cap insignia is improper too. If you wear the USCG unit bgallcap then the only insignia permitted on that cap is the Auxiliary member device.

At the District Conference earlier this year, I heard one flyboy tell another that they "have a perfect record, they've never left one (an airplane) up there".

With this guy, I'm surprised they haven't already.

I was just beginning to get gruntled again and I stumbled on this thread with all the reminders of my arguments with high silver. Thanks, guys!

What is being referred to as a new "safety stand down" may be a misunderstood as the "annual aviation safety seminar, water egress training, and water survival training" as required on the 7015 form. We in D8CR go through it every year -- and it isn't new. Actually, it is coming up the weekend of the 18th in conjunction with the CoC for the AIRSTA.

As far as the insignia on the flightsuit goes, the AUXMAN does allow the option -- but in our squadron, the truly active team members choose NOT to wear it out of respect for our active duty squadron mates, and to eliminate any confusion regarding rank by those not familiar with the Auxiliary. I do wear a AIRSTA ball cap, but the Auxiliary garrison cap device goes in the center instead of an office insignia.

In addition, we wear leather nametags that are made for us by the Rescue Swimmers at the AIRSTA. I personally think they look better than the cloth -- especially when worn on the leather USCG G-1 flight jacket.

Finally, I might add that I'm utilized as a first responder frequently in my Auxiliary service. It all depends upon the relationship that you -- the individual Auxiliarist (or team) -- has developed with the call-out authorities (Sector Commander, AIRSTA CO, etc.).

Good for you Flyandscuba!

I do believe that there are opportunities for first response in the Aux! Now if we could only convince some of the others...

As far as the insignia on the flightsuit goes, the AUXMAN does allow the option

There are two elements to this. The insignia is authorized to be worn when the CG and Aux make them available thru authorized suppliers. The first part, authorization to wear, happened in the last AuxMan. The second part is still missing - the Aux and CG have never named an official source for the insignia. Homebrew and unauthorized source insignia are prohibited from wear on the uni. So anyone wearing officer insignia on the flight suit is violating the rules & regs - there is no other possibility. But then members and officers (it is almost always officers BTW) also wear unauthorized cloth versions of the AuxOps device and other devices (wings). The only authorized cloth device is the coxswain device - all other are illegal. Don't believe me? Check the AuxMan and the AuxKB.

quote:

What is being referred to as a new "safety stand down" may be a misunderstood as the "annual aviation safety seminar, water egress training, and water survival training"

Nope, sorry to say but you're wrong about this, fly. Checked with my aviator sources and in addition to all the things you listed above, the 1SR flyboys now have this new requirement, the Annual Air Safety Stand Down. The first one was held en masse at Fort Wadsworth in May. A real waste of time from what I hear - much posturing and verbal masturbation. It's listed as an annual requirement to be fulfilled each year in that other on-line system they use to schedule patrols and keep track of everything (I forget the name but it's not POMS - they still use it but there's another internet program they also use).

quote:

Originally posted by flyandscuba:


Finally, I might add that I'm utilized as a first responder frequently in my Auxiliary service. It all depends upon the relationship that you -- the individual Auxiliarist (or team) -- has developed with the call-out authorities (Sector Commander, AIRSTA CO, etc.).

That's our experience in D8cr, also. The one weekend I would've gone out, but couldn't because of being at "C" school, out flotilla was crdited with 8 saves. We frequently are offered standby status for PRIMARY RESPONSE if an emergency comes thru. We've been asked if we can do it EVERY weekend, but do not have enough crew qualified members and facilities to commit to it that often...
Keep in mind that some AD officers just have different opinions, and different levels of give a damn, about the aux. We have a new group in town that just can't fathom why the aux wasn't utilized more in the past, and are DOING something about it....

Well I don't think any of that will happen with 1SR. I hear there are so many cowboys amongst the flyboys and no leadership that they are lucky nobody has been killed yet although they've come close a number of times.

quote:

Originally posted by FL51D7:

There are two elements to this. The insignia is authorized to be worn when the CG and Aux make them available thru authorized suppliers. The first part, authorization to wear, happened in the last AuxMan. The second part is still missing - the Aux and CG have never named an official source for the insignia. Homebrew and unauthorized source insignia are prohibited from wear on the uni. So anyone wearing officer insignia on the flight suit is violating the rules & regs - there is no other possibility.

Actually, there is....

See 10.B.4 of the AUXMAN

quote:

Commercial Sources

Auxiliarists may use commercial sources for buying uniforms and insignia. Coast Guard and commercial sources of Auxiliary uniforms can also be found in the Uniform Procurement Guide, which is posted on the Auxiliary web site (see Appendix J) and distributed to all MA officers annually.

See Page 32 of the Uniform Procurement Guide for a list of authorized vendors.

One of the authorized sources for sew on insignia is "Wings & Things" in Pensacola, FL -- specializing in flight suit insignia. All Navy, USMC, USCG and some USAF and foreign nation flight students have their flight suit insignia worked up at this authorized commercial vendor. They also produce the Auxiliary office insignia that is approved as an option for the flight suit wear in the AUXMAN.

Therefore, sew-on insignia for the Auxiliary flight suit can be purchased from an authorized vendor. I personally choose not to do so for the reasons stated in my eariler post.

With regards to the subject's cloth nametag -- the AUXMAN indicates:

quote:

The cloth patch shall have silver/white thread on a dark cloth background, blue or black, at the discretion of the Coast Guard order-issuing authority.

So, if his sponsoring AIRSTA squadron has approved -- it is ok (it is blue and could be considered a "dark" background).

As far as the white turtleneck goes, that may be up to the AIRSTA as well.

When I first started flying under orders for AIRSTA NOLA, the approved undergarment was a white crew neck T-shirt. It has since been changed to the same blue crew neck T-shirt that we wear with ODUs. Again, I think it depends upon what the AIRSTA CO blesses.

You won't find the NOMEX flight jackets or the leather G-1 flight jackets in the UDC catalog (nor the flight suits for that matter), but they are available from commercial sources and are approved for wear. They serve as a form of PPE as well as an operational uniform.

So, the only definite AUXMAN violation I see from the photo is the wearing of Auxiliary office insignia on the Station ball cap. Authough I have heard unit commanders (Sector and AIRSTA) tell Auxies it is ok, and they would like them to do it...

This type of courtesy shown to admired Auxies is common in my experience with active duty unit commanders -- just as I've been told that I'm considered part of the wardroom staff of the AIRSTA, with access to the Wardroom ("Officer Country") and it's priviledges and activities.

The difference of course being, access is through invitation as a result of a relationship -- rather than someone expecting/demanding it as a "right". Those types of AUXIE attitudes meet a very different response -- and make things more difficult for the rest of us...

One of the authorized sources for sew on insignia is "Wings & Things" in Pensacola, FL --

What you haven't shown and cannot because it has never been issued is if W&T (or any other manufacturer) has any authority to make Aux officer insignia. They don't.

They also produce the Auxiliary office insignia that is approved as an option for the flight suit wear in the AUXMAN.

The insignia is approved but W&T are not approved manufacturers.

Just because an authorized supplier makes some authorized items does not mean all the items they make are authorized. For that matter, it it W&T or one of the other authorized suppliers that make the unauthorized cloth AuxOps, Trident and various 'Wing' insignia?

The mission hour patch was also authorized in the same AuxMan but that one hasn't been officially released to the suppliers either.

Who is responsible for dragging **** then on the sew-on stuff?