# CELE to do CAP this year?



## Hobbit (7 Jul 2012)

Hello everyone,

I am currently at St-Jean doing my BMOQ and like usual crazy rumors are flying around. This latest one actually pertains to me so now I am curious. There is a rumor going around that starting this year CELE Air Officers will have to do CAP? Has anyone heard about this and can either confirm or deny it?

Thanks


----------



## wannabe SF member (7 Jul 2012)

Quite true. I have one in my section right now.


----------



## MedCorps (7 Jul 2012)

I also saw them on the "CAP eligible" list a few weeks ago. 

MC


----------



## Hobbit (7 Jul 2012)

CAP eligiable, does that mean they all do CAP or just some? Because in January on my SEM's training schedule for me it only had SLT and CELE Mod 1&2 as training after BMOQ. When did they start putting us on CAP?


----------



## Joesph_B (8 Jul 2012)

I disagree with the decision to make CAP required for CELE.  If a CELE wanted to fill in for a Signals Officer, they would have signed up as a Signals Officer. 

 Also, if a situation comes up to be deployed in an operational environment, you gain more than enough training on pre-deployment screening.  This is nothing more than a pissing contest between Airforce and Army signals and the new recruits are getting caught in the middle.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Jul 2012)

Joesph_B said:
			
		

> I disagree with the decision to make CAP required for CELE.  If a CELE wanted to fill in for a Signals Officer, they would have signed up as a Signals Officer.
> 
> Also, if a situation comes up to be deployed in an operational environment, you gain more than enough training on pre-deployment screening.  This is nothing more than a pissing contest between Airforce and Army signals and the new recruits are getting caught in the middle.



Preemployment is not the time to be learning new things unless its theatre specific TTPs. Welcome the world of the C& E branch, where cele types are posted to land operational units. Is CAP really that hard? Doubtful.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Jul 2012)

Joesph_B said:
			
		

> and the new recruits are getting caught in the middle.



 :crybaby:

The Queen is still paying them and their time is still pensionable.


----------



## jeffb (8 Jul 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Preemployment is not the time to be learning new things unless its theatre specific TTPs. Welcome the world of the C& E branch, where cele types are posted to land operational units. Is CAP really that hard? Doubtful.



+1. BMOQ-L (CAP) sucks at the time but it's only 10 weeks. The skills you learn on it are really an extension of what you have learned on BMOQ and you WILL be better prepared to do your job if for no other reason then it will give you a better appreciation of battle procedure and what life is like for the Army types.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (8 Jul 2012)

Joesph_B said:
			
		

> I disagree with the decision to make CAP required for CELE.  If a CELE wanted to fill in for a Signals Officer, they would have signed up as a Signals Officer.
> 
> Also, if a situation comes up to be deployed in an operational environment, you gain more than enough training on pre-deployment screening.  This is nothing more than a pissing contest between Airforce and Army signals and the new recruits are getting caught in the middle.


So what happens when as all things in the Signals Corps the two trades amalgamate. It happened on the army side in the 90's with the RTOP and RADOP trades (ok so RADOP swallowed the RTOPS) and again with the RCAF TELOPS and the RADOPS to become sigops ... Long story short situations change now find the "so what" and carry on.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (8 Jul 2012)

Joesph_B said:
			
		

> I disagree with the decision to make CAP required for CELE.  If a CELE wanted to fill in for a Signals Officer, they would have signed up as a Signals Officer.
> 
> Also, if a situation comes up to be deployed in an operational environment, you gain more than enough training on pre-deployment screening.  This is nothing more than a pissing contest between Airforce and Army signals and the new recruits are getting caught in the middle.



Who cares, you are told you will do that course.... so you will do that course..... now move on....

And pre-deployment is not the place to pick new skills unless they are theatre specific...


----------



## Joesph_B (8 Jul 2012)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Who cares, you are told you will do that course.... so you will do that course..... now move on....
> 
> And pre-deployment is not the place to pick new skills unless they are theatre specific...



Or just wait two years until the decision is reversed.  I am grandfathered so I don't have to worry.  

If you look at the most recent consolidation with sig op, line man, tech...  The air force and navy stayed far away from the transition.  Techs stayed on their own in the air force.  Expect this trend to continue.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jul 2012)

Joesph_B said:
			
		

> .........  If a CELE wanted to fill in for a Signals Officer, they would have signed up as a Signals Officer.



Am I wrong, or are not Signals Officers CELE?

Next point:  If you ever intend to make the CF a career and are likely then to deploy to a hostile environment, be in an actual position where you may have to "LEAD" people; then CAP, as you refer to it, is something that you should have the priveledged opportunity to attend and experience.




OH!  And if you think that Pre-deployment training will give you all that you need to know.......WRONG.  You should know that already, and have the proper experience and skills before pre-deployment training......Pre-deployment Training is mostly refresher and testing to ensure that you are ready to deploy.  You are not going to get LEADERSHIP training on Pre-deployment training.  That is really too late to find out that you are not a leader, but a momma's boy/girl who cries because the CF has made him/her do something "Army" like to give them the skillst to stay alive.


----------



## jeffb (8 Jul 2012)

To further what Mr Wallace said, you are thinking about this all wrong. Instead of thinking how bad it is that you have to do CAP (it's actually called BMOQ-L by the way), look at it as an opportunity to gain some very useful skills that you those going before you did not have the opportunity to acquire. There is no such thing in the CF as a bad course. There are courses that are bad while you are doing them but anything that gives you additional hard skills while giving you a chance to test your intestinal fortitude is a good thing in the long run.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Jul 2012)

Joesph_B said:
			
		

> Or just wait two years until the decision is reversed.  I am grandfathered so I don't have to worry.
> 
> If you look at the most recent consolidation with sig op, line man, tech...  The air force and navy stayed far away from the transition.  Techs stayed on their own in the air force.  Expect this trend to continue.



Good, we can kick the CELE and ATIS pers out of the branch and they can fend for themselves. The new rule is you do CAP. Don't want to do CAP? Say goodbye to all those LDA postings at field units.

Really though, why do we need 2 seperate trades to be a Sigs O? Seems like a duplication of effort, considering all the CELE Os I've seen working at JSR in positions typically reserved for Sigs O.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Jul 2012)

I see a solution.

Change CAP to COTPYMHTCDOYM (Common Officer Training Phase You May Have To Complete Depending On Your MOSID) or something....then no one can point to the "Army" in CAP and cry fowl.

Also, COTPYMHTCDOYM is an easy acronym to remember.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Jul 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Good, we can kick the CELE and ATIS pers out of the branch and they can fend for themselves. The new rule is you do CAP. Don't want to do CAP? Say goodbye to all those LDA postings at field units.
> 
> Really though, why do we need 2 seperate trades to be a Sigs O? Seems like a duplication of effort, considering all the CELE Os I've seen working at JSR in positions typically reserved for Sigs O.



You're only looking at it from a Sig O perspective though.  I wonder how well a Sig O who was posted to Army-only billets would fair out as the A6 at North Bay or one of the busier Wings.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Jul 2012)

I'm more pointing out why there is 2 separate trades that basically do the same thing. Heck, change Sig O to CELE for all I care, but we're wasting effort training to 2 standards when we could simply just make one signals officer. I doubt it will ever change, they're happy screwing the NCMs around with amalgamation.

I don't think being the A6 at North Bay would be any harder than the J6 in any large deployed organization. Only differences would be the processes to get things done, and some of the material handled is going to be specific to the Air/Land element, but people with degrees should pick that stuff up pretty quickly.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Jul 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Really though, why do we need 2 seperate trades to be a Sigs O? Seems like a duplication of effort, considering all the CELE Os I've seen working at JSR in positions typically reserved for Sigs O.





Umm?  Could it be that Radio Waves in the Army are not like those in the Airforce or Navy?  Perhaps they skip differently?   >


----------



## 211RadOp (9 Jul 2012)

Not_So_Arty_Newbie said:
			
		

> So what happens when as all things in the Signals Corps the two trades amalgamate. It happened on the army side in the 90's with the RTOP and RADOP trades (ok so RADOP swallowed the RTOPS) and again with the RCAF TELOPS and the RADOPS to become sigops ... Long story short situations change now find the "so what" and carry on.



RTOP was a PRes trade, and they learned both the Rad Op and Tel Op job, so they were not "swallowed" by the Rad Op trade.  Tel Ops and Rad Ops were combined in 2000, and Tel Op was not an RCAF trade (or at that time Air Command).  There were a very large number of Tel Ops wearing the Land DEU.


----------



## 211RadOp (9 Jul 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Am I wrong, or are not Signals Officers CELE?



CELE (Air) (MOSID 00340-01) is to the RCAF as Sig O (MOSID 00341-01) is to the Army.


----------



## McG (9 Jul 2012)

Joesph_B said:
			
		

> I disagree with the decision to make CAP required for CELE.  If a CELE wanted to fill in for a Signals Officer, they would have signed up as a Signals Officer.


Ignoring garrison and strategic HQ positions for now - of the operational positions for CELE(Air), what proportion are air crew?
I suspect the requirement to do BMOQ-L has less to do with "filling in for a Sig O" and more about being able to fight in the environment that one is most likely to find themselves when the fight is going not-as-expected.  It is not the first "hard" RCAF occupation to be required to complete BMOQ-L.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Jul 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Umm?  Could it be that Radio Waves in the Army are not like those in the Airforce or Navy?  Perhaps they skip differently?   >



They skip slower and if they have to travel at night they require hotels before starting to propagate again in the morning in the RCAF.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jul 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> what proportion are air crew?



None.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> more about being able to fight in the environment that one is most likely to find themselves when the fight is going not-as-expected.  I



The RCAF already provides specific training for it's "at risk" members, for times where the fight goes "not as expected". BMOQ-L certainly does not fill that requirement.


----------



## McG (9 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The RCAF already provides specific training for it's "at risk" members, for times where the fight goes "not as expected". BMOQ-L certainly does not fill that requirement.


Are you certain that your opinion is the RCAF perspective.  There are now a number of RCAF officer occupations that support & fight for the RCAF entirely from the ground and which attend BMOQ-L to properly receive the first building-block for training for the ground fight.  It certainly looks like the RCAF believes BMOQ-L fills that requirement.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jul 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> There are now a number of RCAF officer occupations that support & fight for the RCAF entirely from the ground and which attend BMOQ-L to properly receive the first building-block for training for the ground fight.



BMOQ-L certainly fills the requirement those individuals require, but that is not what you suggested. Those individuals being on the ground is not because the fight did not go as expected ( as you commented).

That being said, your comments mentioned "aircrew" WRT CELE-Air, of which there are none. For aircrews, should  the fight  "not go well / as planned" ( as per your comment), the RCAF provides training for very specific skill-sets that BMOQ-L does not.


----------



## McG (9 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> BMOQ-L certainly fills the requirement those individuals require, but that is not what you suggested. Those individuals being on the ground is not because the fight did not go as expected ( as you commented).
> 
> That being said, your comments mentioned "aircrew" WRT CELE-Air, of which there are none. For aircrews, should  the fight  "not go well / as planned" ( as per your comment), the RCAF provides training for very specific skill-sets that BMOQ-L does not.


You are reading messages that are not there.  I would never suggest air crew should attend BMOQ-L to prepare them should the plane go down - the RCAF does have better training for that.  They don't fight in the air, they fight on the ground (the land).

My question about air crew was rhetorical, and illustrative of why BMOQ-L is appropriate for CELE(Air).  While the job is described as comfortably supporting RCAF operations from stations and air bases, those individuals need to be ready to fight the ground fight when insurgents breach the wire of the APOD or when the red hordes over-run the FLOT.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jul 2012)

Ack.

I wager that the decision to put CELE-Air folks on BMOQ-L is tied to the Air Expeditionary Wing being created.


----------

