In regards to "dumbing" down the AUXOP courses...at some point you've got to make a decision about whether it is better for the Aux as an organization to have a tiny number of highly-trained (assuming you believe these courses are good training in the first place) AUXOP persons or a much greater number of people who meet slightly lower standards.

Since the AUXOP people are all individuals and aren't part of some high-speed elite unit where everybody meets super standards, I would lean towards increasing the number of people who have medium-level training since that would probably result in greater overall benefit to the Aux.

I expect that you've taken the old AUXSAR course -- would you be open to taking the new course?

I passed the old AuxSAR course as well as the old (pre-AuxACN) AuxNav course. If I were still in the Aux I would at least audit the first few classes of the new course to see if it were worth continuing. I think one of the problems the Aux is going to have with the new course is that you first must pass it (hard to do with few instructors) and then pass the instructor couse in order to teach it. I think that will impede the roll-out of the course. From my experience in the Aux you get several volunteers to do the T3 routine but very few of them then follow-thru and actually teach.

Another question I have is what is the frequency of actual SAR tasking for surface Auxiliary facilities?

It varies greatly by area. For example, in my old AOR we rarely got tasked. If it was daytime you would almost certainly be beaten to the case by SeaTow or TowBoatUS anyway. A callout, with one exception, would almost be unheard of. If you weren't already underway the CG took the case. The one known exception is that a few times the Aux got a call-out to look for an overdue in the ICW at night after the CG boat crew had reached its crew endurance limits.

I did go on 3 cases, over a 6 year period, off-shore where we tasked to find 3 known derelicts or wrecks. The derelicts were semi-submerged and all we were asked to do was locate them and put an old fender painted flo organe on them. Since there was no money in it, the salvors weren't interested.

I do know that on a national level the number of lives saved and persons assisted has been trending downward for years. It could be the RBS is paying off (doubtful since that is on a downward trend also) or the Aux is patrolling less or regardless of patrol activity the Aux isn't getting the cases.

I would rely on SkyRay for direct experience but I think the surface guys may get more cases in the Miami area. On the west coast of Florida the flotiallas some distance away from the stations also get cases.

I do see the false expectation of some new members -- especially when they are going through the boat crew program -- that they are going to have the opportunity to particiate in such SAR tasking is common. Realistically, it never happens and the frustration of "not getting to really do anything" sets in.

I would agree with you. The Aux loves to sell the sizzle of action SAR when it really happens. Trying to convince members that ATON reporting is important and can be done on every patrol just isn't exciting.

Since the AUXOP people are all individuals and aren't part of some high-speed elite unit where everybody meets super standards, I would lean towards increasing the number of people who have medium-level training since that would probably result in greater overall benefit to the Aux.

There is a lot to be said for that arguement but if that is what the Aux is doing it should be up front with the membership about it. As it stands, the current plan is to teach a dumbed down Weekend Navigator course to the membership as part of AuxOp - the PhD program of the Aux - and continue to teach the tougher BCN/ACN to the general public.

Depends on your AOR.
11-7 Hudson may get one call-out a month for SAR.

Being midway between Station Sand Key & Station Yankeetown, both of which are a LONG way away from Hudson, we get a lot of call-outs.

Personally, I'm in favor of scrapping the current AUXOP curriculum completely and starting over with all new courses along with two or 3 levels of each course.

That way the Ph.D. level or whatever yall call it stays, but those of us who don't care about being experts at the traditional stuff can still learn about the basics. In addition, the current AUXOP doens't cover marine safety, ATON, or a number of other fields that are now a large part of Auxiliary operations. There is no more O and M... there is Prevention, Response, and Logistics...

Good point baloo. Makes sense to me, though given the Aux's apparent lack of ability to keep these courses up to date, I'm not sure they could handle multiple levels very well.

I'm in favor of scrapping the current AUXOP curriculum completely and starting over with all new courses along with two or 3 levels of each course

There is precedent for mulitple levels of qualification.

1. BCQP. boat crew, pwc operator, coxswain and QE.
2. Air. air observer, air crew, co-pilot, first pilot, aircraft commander, flight examiner, instructor pilot
3. PA. PA Spec, PA Spec II and CG PA Support Spec.

I'm also tracking down a rumor that they almost did away with AuxCom as we know it at NACON and replaced it with a 3 tier qualification. It is unclear if the proposal was a formal proposal that got shot down or just an informal idea that someone 'ran up the flag pole'. What is known is that AuxCom is one of the AuxOp courses supposedly under active revision.

given the Aux's apparent lack of ability to keep these courses up to date, I'm not sure they could handle multiple levels very well

Ditto. Unless the Aux just takes over the CG's training - no matter how inapprpriate for Aux use that would be.

I just wanted to thank "fly" for working on this project and getting it to a deliverable condition. I've been there and I know what a huge amount of work that is.

I also want to thank you for posting the information here, in an open and honest manner. It is encouraging at the least.

I am not a proponent of developing operational training qualifications programs like SAR, by mimicking the USCG programs and twisting them to fit the Auxiliary. I always thought the AUXSAR program was an example of a program deliberately made difficult and full of material utterly worthless to the typical Auxiliary boat crew. IOW, very little value for a lot of work.

It sounds like, with this new course, that you have looked hard at the involvement, participation level, and expectations of an Auxiliary crew participating in a typical SAR and hopefully removed material that pertains to USCG level management of a SAR case. I hope that is the emphasis.

I question the need for advanced navigational skills to be included in the SAR qualification for AUXOP. We have the ACN or updated version of that which covers navigation. I wonder, in the real Auxiliary world, how often Auxiliary facilities are actually required to navigate to and plot search patterns out of sight of land and w/o GPS coordinates or capability.

Unless you perceive the various AUXOP courses to be an academic exercise designed to "weed out the weak or uncommitted" I still think they all need considerable real world tweaking.

Also, I have met many an AUXOP who has never run a boat or ever exercised any of the training within the AUXOP course. I may be wrong, but I think you can achieve AUXOP w/o being in the BC program? What is the point of that? How does that serve our organization?

Thanks, but I can't take any credit for making this new course come to be. It was an effort by the USCG National SAR School -- and an Auxiliairst who serves as an instructor on their staff. I was merely selected as an instructor/trainer candidate -- and successfully completed the program.

One observation I've noticed about the members here -- and in the Auxiliary in general -- as in any volunteer organization... They cry out for change -- but when change occurs, many are inherently resistant -- and cry out once again. The elected and appointed decision makers truly are in a "no win" situation. However, I supose that dynamic makes us alive and viable as an orgaization too.

Also, I have met many an AUXOP who has never run a boat or ever exercised any of the training within the AUXOP course. I may be wrong, but I think you can achieve AUXOP w/o being in the BC program?

True, you do not have to be BCQP qualified to take and pass AuxOp courses. Not known to many but you do not even need to be BQ (pass a boating course). An IQ member can take every AuxOp course. If they pass them all they would be in an interesting position of being an AX member without a boating course. Although the assumption is that an AX member has passed a boating course - it is not a requirement.

What is the point of that? How does that serve our organization?

Since you will probably not get a posting from an official source, I can give you the party line as stated in no longer accessible AuxOp program brochures and the like.

1. The original AuxOp program, circa 1950s was a group qualification for the elite among the Aux boaties. Keep in mind that 'back then' there was no formal BCQP. Any member having passed his provisional exams was qualified to crew or operate (coxswains didn't exist) a boat. The AuxOps were to be the highly trained elite group that did the hard SAR cases. The program never lasted long in that guise do to lack of interest.

2. By the late 1950s/early 60s, the AuxOp program morphed into its current state as an individual qual. Other then being the only ones who could be a proctor (as is the case now), there may have been other things an AuxOp member could do that a regular member could not. The sources are confused on this issue.

3. With the advent of the BCQP in 1984, the AuxOp program lost any meaning as an elite qual within the Aux for operations. Although there from the beginning the Aux begins to sell the AuxOp program more as the "Phd program" of the Aux. That comes right out of one of the brochures that still existed up to about 3 years ago. The idea was stated that not only should the program turn out superior Ops members but the knowledge gained should also help turn out superior instructors (they do teach boating and most of the subjects under AuxOps), VEs, PVs etc.

In essence post-1984 AuxOp was the advanced training for all Auxies on all boating related topics. At least that was the official line until a few years ago.

The Trident device became the equivalent for Marine Safety which is why AuxOp doesn't cover MS.

quote:

One observation I've noticed about the members here -- and in the Auxiliary in general -- as in any volunteer organization... They cry out for change -- but when change occurs, many are inherently resistant -- and cry out once again. The elected and appointed decision makers truly are in a "no win" situation. However, I supose that dynamic makes us alive and viable as an orgaization too.

That's true, but that's because we never sell our programs. We never involve the membership in the devlopment and decision-making process. Changes are imposed, usually in the most impersonal and abrupt manner conceivable. And because the membership was not involved in either development or introduction, these programs are often fatally flawed and no amount of beating on the membership will salvage the program.

Great example is PSI.

quote:

Thanks, but I can't take any credit for making this new course come to be. It was an effort by the USCG National SAR School -- and an Auxiliairst who serves as an instructor on their staff. I was merely selected as an instructor/trainer candidate -- and successfully completed the program.

Now that's scary. Because the USCG has very little comprehension of the Auxiliary's capabilities as a whole, or its real functions and purpose. And the USCG has almost no visibility of the Auxiliarist's role in SAR as generally occurs. So again, we will end up with a twisted version of the USCG process (it's all they know) and not a program tailored to the Auxiliary reality.

Unless that Auxiliarist that worked with the USCG on this program was very courageous and outspoken and in fact he/herself, understood the Auxiliary's limitations and best employment in the overall SAR scenario.

I hope so!

Some of the AUX SCE materials are up on the USCG E-learning's Virtual Classroom site as well as the new USCG SAR Fundamentals E-SAR Course.

USCG E-learning Virtual Classroom

The SAR stuff is under "USCG Courses". Most of the stuff requires an enrollment key. But if you go to page 2 "SAR Fundamentals (e-SAR) Course" does not require a key - only the exam does.

quote:

Originally posted by ENGELJ:

Now that's scary. Because the USCG has very little comprehension of the Auxiliary's capabilities as a whole, or its real functions and purpose. And the USCG has almost no visibility of the Auxiliarist's role in SAR as generally occurs. So again, we will end up with a twisted version of the USCG process (it's all they know) and not a program tailored to the Auxiliary reality.

Unless that Auxiliarist that worked with the USCG on this program was very courageous and outspoken and in fact he/herself, understood the Auxiliary's limitations and best employment in the overall SAR scenario.

I hope so!

The LTJG, AETC, and OSC who taught the course I attended were very well in tune with the Auxiliary's role -- and tailored their presentations appropriately to the audience. The auxiliarist instructor is an integral part of their staff at TRACEN. He appeared experienced, seasoned, knowledgable and on top of what was desired for the course. I expect he had great influence in the National SAR School's course development and implementation of the training program.

People might want to take the course before jumping to conclusions regarding its appropriateness or value to the organization. It exceeded my expectations -- and I left a more skillfull SAR-actual operator (though I'm an airedale...).

quote:

Originally posted by ENGELJ:

That's true, but that's because we never sell our programs. We never involve the membership in the devlopment and decision-making process. Changes are imposed, usually in the most impersonal and abrupt manner conceivable. And because the membership was not involved in either development or introduction, these programs are often fatally flawed and no amount of beating on the membership will salvage the program.

Great example is PSI.

Do you really expect everything to be run through the entire membership for comment and a vote? Nothing would get done.

The membership does have input -- through the election of officers, who in turn appoint staff. Those officers you elect and the staff they appoint are there to be your representatives. If you don't like the results, vote in different people.

Most things being implemented into an organization the size of the Auxiliary will have the appearance of being imposed. Management decisions will be made in any organization -- that why it is a management decision. A true democracy does not exist often in societies. It can't -- because it would be impossible to manage. That's why we live in a constitutional republic (representative democracy) in the United States -- and not a true democracy...

After all, the PSI was accepted by the majority of the membership after implementation. It was a minority that chose to leave the organization rather than participate. They had that free choice. A few here exercised that choice while the vast majority of us complied with the program and continue to serve in the organization.

Out of curiosity, if the PSI issue had been presented to the membership for a vote -- and it had overwhelmingly passed, would the requirement have been more acceptable to those who chose to leave the organization rather than comply? Doubtful. (It's sad that nearly every thread in this forum -- even one about an educational opportunity -- finds it way back to a soapbox for those who hate the PSI... )

quote:

Originally posted by flyandscuba:

quote:

Originally posted by ENGELJ:

That's true, but that's because we never sell our programs. We never involve the membership in the devlopment and decision-making process. Changes are imposed, usually in the most impersonal and abrupt manner conceivable. And because the membership was not involved in either development or introduction, these programs are often fatally flawed and no amount of beating on the membership will salvage the program.

Great example is PSI.

Do you really expect everything to be run through the entire membership for comment and a vote? Nothing would get done.

The membership does have input -- through the election of officers, who in turn appoint staff. Those officers you elect and the staff they appoint are there to be your representatives. If you don't like the results, vote in different people.

Most things being implemented into an organization the size of the Auxiliary will have the appearance of being imposed. Management decisions will be made in any organization -- that why it is a management decision. A true democracy does not exist often in societies. It can't -- because it would be impossible to manage. That's why we live in a constitutional republic (representative democracy) in the United States -- and not a true democracy...

After all, the PSI was accepted by the majority of the membership after implementation. It was a minority that chose to leave the organization rather than participate. They had that free choice. A few here exercised that choice while the vast majority of us complied with the program and continue to serve in the organization.

Out of curiosity, if the PSI issue had been presented to the membership for a vote -- and it had overwhelmingly passed, would the requirement have been more acceptable to those who chose to leave the organization rather than comply? Doubtful. (It's sad that nearly every thread in this forum -- even one about an educational opportunity -- finds it way back to a soapbox for those who hate the PSI... )

Unlike the US Government, you cannot elect your leader in the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Perhaps if elections were held for that office, things would be a lot better.

Ah, you bring up the PSI, my favorite topic!
Just because not everyone left the Auxiliary due to the silly PSI, does not mean that they gave it the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

I would think if you had put it to an election, the PSI would have sorely lost.

And, isn't it a bit ironic that you are complaining that every topic finds its way back to the PSI, when you were the one bringing it up?

Well, since you did... I can now get back on my soap box. Thanks!

Actually ENGELJ brought up the PSI...

Also, as in the US government -- where you vote for representatives to cast a vote for the country's leader (Electoral college) -- you cast votes for Flotilla leaders, who are your representatives to cast votes for the Division leadership (individuals from the membership to represent you), who cast votes to elect District leaders (also representatives from the organization's membership), who in turn cast votes for the National leadership (again, individuals who are part of the general membership). So, just at what point does an elected leader who is part of the general membership cease to become a representative of the membership?

But then -- none of them represent you, Forewatch -- because you are no longer a member...

Well, since you did... I can now get back on my soap box. Thanks!

Just for the record, I believe if you check back thru the thread it was EngelJ who first mentioned the PSI.

The membership does have input -- through the election of officers, who in turn appoint staff. Those officers you elect and the staff they appoint are there to be your representatives. If you don't like the results, vote in different people.


Also to set the record straight - the only officers directly elected by membership are the FC and VFC. After that the elections become a very closed loop and very far removed from the membership.

OTOH - you directly elect your federal Rep, Senators and thru the Electoral College the President.

Years ago there was a requirement that any proposal had to originate in a flotilla and work its way up the chain. Then many years ago the rules were changed to allow District elected officers and National elected officers to put proposals on the table without ever having to get them recommended or approved at any other level. National and district staff officers could get proposals put on the table by getting the okie-dokie of the district or national unit leader or vice.

The Aux hasn't had any direct input from the membership on any of the national proposals in more then a decade, probably closer to 2 decades. Tilley even remarks on this in his book but puts the era when Nat lost touch with the membership even earlier.

The membership didn't ask for the BCQP in 1984 - it was imposed on it. It also didn't ask for the subsequent No Towing Policy - it was imposed on the membership. And although the No Towing Policy wiped out the reason for the BCQP the Aux is still stuck with both 23 years after the fact.

Nor did the membership ask for the PSI, the special flags for the DCOs and above, the Legion of Demerit Award and a whole host of other policy changes in the last 2 decades that benefit the grandees. The Aux on paper is a membership driven organization - it fact it hasn't been one in a long time.

And if NACO Steve manages to railroad ex-NACO Gene's Best Bud proposal thru then it will get even worse - as your higher level officers will all be staffers who never had to lead in the trenches and got their waiver to hold district office based on the quality and quantity of their arse kissing.

quote:

Originally posted by flyandscuba:
Actually ENGELJ brought up the PSI...

No, actually the anonymous "Military Enthusiast" troll (AKA "Guardrail256") started it all when he/she created the "Whats Wrong with the PSI's" thread, and hasn't been heard from since. We had gone quite a long time without any PSI discussions (sic).

...gjd