Posting about a mission is bad? HOW? CPP? The cadet's names were never mentioned and no pictures of the minor cadets were put into print without parental permission...so how was cpp violated?

Quote from: Krapenhoeffer on October 14, 2009, 04:34:33 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on October 13, 2009, 12:21:06 AM
And why would a cadet take an order from a fireman anyway?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but if I learned my Incident Command System correctly, it would make sense for the firefighter to be the Incident Commander, and it would be perfectly understandable to ask a cadet to flip some switches to prevent what may have been a massive explosion, and for said cadet to obey this command.

Once again, posting in a public fourm about a mission (double standard for CAPTalk much?) is a bad idea, and should warrant a stern CPP-friendly Wall-to-Wall counciling session.

However this was not a 'mission' where cap was under the fire department (Assumed due to the nature of the incident), nor was the cadet qualified (As per eServices) to perform such an action, and as such, was not a resource had the fire department been the ICS.


NCRblues- Don't you know about OPSEC? There's a reason why it's required... this is why. When false or incorrect information is given (As was here), legal proceedings could be affected. Before any info about a mission or event is given, it should be run through the PIO or PAO

However this was not a 'mission' where cap was under the fire department (Assumed due to the nature of the incident), nor was the cadet qualified (As per eServices) to perform such an action, and as such, was not a resource had the fire department been the ICS.


NCRblues- Don't you know about OPSEC? There's a reason why it's required... this is why. When false or incorrect information is given (As was here), legal proceedings could be affected. Before any info about a mission or event is given, it should be run through the PIO or PAO
[/quote]

First off, what qualifications in eservices are you speaking about? I would also like to ask how you looked this up on eservices, because your profile says NY, so you would not have accesses to California personnel. Second, opsec in cap is way overplayed. Yes cadet, i do know about opsec, i am active duty air force so we get the training. Can you point out the "false or incorrect" information to me? and if you can, how do you verify it? Were you their? Is cap personnel supposed to stand their wile the fire department and others speak about an incident and when they come to the cap member, simply state sorry can't talk about it, opsec? What a joke, take opsec with a grain of salt. If you are on the scene of an accident, and fire rescue is there, they have command, watch how fast you and cap gets thrown off the scene if you refuse to do what the fire rescue officials ask. A fire rescue official would never put children in harm's way, they are trained professionals, and so if the fire rescuse official asked the cadet to do anything, it was safe.

Anybody can look up the ES quals on anyone else. For example I just looked up Maj. Gen. Courter. In eServices on the left side click "My Ops quals/Natl reports" then click national reports on the top and in the dropdown select "mbr qual info report".

When the cadet talked to the press he should have only told what he directly observed and not speculated at all.

For example: "I saw the aircraft make a forced landing and slide off the runway stopping upright. When I got there ... I observed ... I helped with ... etc"

Talking to the press is fine as long as you are careful what and how you say things. Never speculate.

Unless you are the Incident Commander, or have been authorized by the Incident Commander to speak on his behalf, the proper response to the press is always, "You'll need to obtain that information from [insert name or title here]."

It is not the position of the average CAP member, police officer, firefighter, etc. to make statements to the press.

Yes, ICS does allow CAP to "work for" other agenices.  However, at no point is someone from another agency going to be able to give any sort of order to a cadet.  Now, if the fire dept asked a CAP senior member to help in this incident and then that senior member asked a cadet to do it, that would be how it should have been done.  Though, of course I'm not sure I would agree with a CAP senior member directing a cadet to do this sort of action either.

^^^^^

More reason for CAP to start adopting the ICS mechanisms.  If CAP does not adopt to the new world training standards and stop worrying about its CPPT, questioning actions of both cadets and seniors and reemphasize talking to the press....the real responders are probably going to dismiss us.

"oh wait a minute, Mr First Responder, let me call my chain of command first, AFRCC to get a mission number, and get a PIO/ PAO here first before I can do anything...."


I see a problem here, anyway.  Just like any incident, there will always be Monday morning quarterbacking.  We can  beat up the cadet and seniors about this alll we want.  But in the real world of ICS and getting the mission safely done, No matter how it gets done, who does it isn't going to matter.

Let's see a TRUE mission AAR in LLIS.gov    The First Responder world would get a charge out of all this.  Granted CAP has its mechanisms, they are not the end all, in real world incidents.

Whether or not CAP procedure was followed or not, people reacted to their minimum level of training (an assumption here).  But when the real world goes up CAP "procedure" will be last thing adhered to when it comes to life safety, property protection , and resource protection.

Sure there were mistakes made, in the real world there are plenty.  Time for some CAP re-education when it needs working with the press....BOTH seniors and cadets. 

CAPTalk..... where a 2B is imminent for any action and  where second guessing are commonplace

I've held off on commenting, because we really don't have all the facts. However, there were a few remarks posted here that prompted me to write.

Based on the limited information available, it sounds like everyone involved did one heck of a job and took care of business. Agencies that have probably never worked or trained with each other before, got together, came up with a plan and handled the incident.

Would the fire department ask Civil Air Patrol to shut off the fuel? I bet they would, because the average firefighter has never seen the inside of a small plane, and doesn't know what a fuel switch looks like. Should they have turned off the ELT? Yes, of course they should have.

I don't know about a medal. Again, we don't have all the facts. Fortunately, the members involved didn't sit back and compare 101 cards. They worked as a team and got the job done. Outstanding.

Quote from: RiverAux on October 14, 2009, 12:28:37 PM
Yes, ICS does allow CAP to "work for" other agenices.  However, at no point is someone from another agency going to be able to give any sort of order to a cadet.  Now, if the fire dept asked a CAP senior member to help in this incident and then that senior member asked a cadet to do it, that would be how it should have been done.  Though, of course I'm not sure I would agree with a CAP senior member directing a cadet to do this sort of action either.

"At no point is someone from another agency going to be able to give any sort of order to a cadet."

Really? So cadets aren't really qualifed members?

If CAP wants to play emergency services, and give more then lip service to ICS, then it needs to start working with others.

Quote from: JThemann on October 14, 2009, 07:14:36 PM
"At no point is someone from another agency going to be able to give any sort of order to a cadet."

Really? So cadets aren't really qualifed members?

If CAP wants to play emergency services, and give more then lip service to ICS, then it needs to start working with others.

1) Cadets are never allowed to be supervised or under the command of non-CAP personnel.

B) Generally, any support provided to another agency is done in a manner which leaves CAP personnel
under the command and supervision of a CAP chain of command, which in turn is operating under the direction of the other agency.  Rarely if ever is / should CAP working directly for a leader from another agency, if for no other reason than we have more strict rules about what we are allowed to do than other similar support organizations.

(This is where Helio will insert 14 smiles and some devil horns, etc.   )

^^^^^

Affirmative, sir

Themann hits it on the head again........ IF CAP wants to play ES then it HAS to learn to play with others  in the big world.

Good for our strict "rules."  Governed by "risk averse" personnel with a penchant for going overboard on ORM and safety.  That in itself, guarantees one thing for CAP ........it's still ok to to SDIS, ARCHER, MRE handout, and sand bag  detail.   Guarantees, as of right now, some reasons DHS and HLS missions may not be served on our plate.  CAP can safely be assured it place as support only then and not first response mode in many a constraint with its its so called ROE

So how is that HR 1178 Comptroller General study going for CAP?  Hope our "rules" do not get in the way for CAP's wishes for more involvement in DHS type missions.  Maybe their lawyers will have to do lunch with our  lawyers to get  a "real set" (pardon the pun) of rules for operations in the real world and more reason for CAP to tout how much we can save the US Govt yet need more of a standardized sets of training and credentialing to really work seamlessly with and in DHS missions.

My button won't work  for smileys this hour

So you're trying to tell me cap personnel don't answer to other on scene commanders?   So, let's say another Katrina like hurricane hits Louisiana again, and marshal law is declared, to maintain order, and cap is asked by fema, the National Guard and the air force to help, you're telling me we don't have to listen to the authorities put in place by the governor, oh if it's that bad by the president? Give me a break, go ahead and tell the fire marshal of a state or police chief or fema emergency manager you're not ganna follow his rules see what happens. This is why cap always plays secound fiddle even though we could play with the big boys

Quote from: NCRblues on October 14, 2009, 07:59:15 PM
So you're trying to tell me cap personnel don't answer to other on scene commanders?   So, let's say another Katrina like hurricane hits Louisiana again, and marshal law is declared, to maintain order, and cap is asked by fema, the National Guard and the air force to help, you're telling me we don't have to listen to the authorities put in place by the governor, oh if it's that bad by the president? Give me a break, go ahead and tell the fire marshal of a state or police chief or fema emergency manager you're not ganna follow his rules see what happens. This is why cap always plays secound fiddle even though we could play with the big boys

Or...it's because before we CAN play, the requesting agency needs to contact our chain of command at the appropriate level...

Quote from: NCRblues on October 14, 2009, 07:59:15 PM
So you're trying to tell me cap personnel don't answer to other on scene commanders?   So, let's say another Katrina like hurricane hits Louisiana again, and marshal law is declared, to maintain order, and cap is asked by fema, the National Guard and the air force to help, you're telling me we don't have to listen to the authorities put in place by the governor, oh if it's that bad by the president? Give me a break, go ahead and tell the fire marshal of a state or police chief or fema emergency manager you're not ganna follow his rules see what happens. This is why cap always plays secound fiddle even though we could play with the big boys.

Your example makes no sense.

As civilians we are bound to follow any legal declarations respective to our circumstance, however since we are neither military, nor part of a civil authority, individuals cannot be "activated" on the spot, as might be the case with someone who is PD/FD or in the military.

If we are involved, we always report to CAP's chain of command.  Individual assets are never under the command of anyone else.  We might work under operational control of some other agency, but the command is always with CAP.

As an example, if we're working for the National Guard, and an NG team leader says "stand here", and CAP says "go home", we go home.

The cadet rules are self-explanatory.

For the record, marshal law was never declared in LA or MS, it was a "state of emergency", which is basically the same thing, but lawyers and constitutional scholars would argue differently. 

So then, let's say you're on scene, you're the highest ranking cap person there, but you're not the incident commander, let's say, oh fema director is. He/she comes up to you and says hey as Incident commander I need you and your troops to do this, you say, wait hold on I need to contact my chain of command? Isn't that what the ICS was designed to go around? So all chains of command, in an emergency, are consolidated?

Quote from: NCRblues on October 14, 2009, 09:10:54 PM
So then, let's say you're on scene, you're the highest ranking cap person there, but you're not the incident commander, let's say, oh fema director is. He/she comes up to you and says hey as Incident commander I need you and your troops to do this, you say, wait hold on I need to contact my chain of command? Isn't that what the ICS was designed to go around? So all chains of command, in an emergency, are consolidated?

All chains of command are not, by any means, consolidated, just because ICS is in place.  The existing command structures fall into the overall plan as per MOU's, SOP's, and common sense.  Police and fire, for example, still report to their own chains, with the top personnel assigned to the specific incident reporting in as part of the ICS structure as team leaders, area managers, etc.

If CAP is not officially involved, neither are you, even if you are HEADCAP.  If CAP is involved, you take direction from the CAP chain, not some random FEMA person doing an Al Haig.

In CAP you aren't "on Scene" just because you are there.  If it doesn't have a mission number attached, we're not playing, and if it does, you should be well aware of who the IC is, and what the SOP is regarding working with other agencies. 

If you, as a cadet, find yourself to be the ranking person "on scene"...you go home.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 14, 2009, 08:53:31 PMAs civilians we are bound to follow any legal declarations respective to our circumstance, however since we are neither military, nor part of a civil authority, individuals cannot be "activated" on the spot, as might be the case with someone who is PD/FD or in the military.

Minor legal quibble:  PD/FD folks are just as much "civlilian" as we are.  IOW, a cop can refuse to obey an order and go home, just like any CAP member.  The cop will not go to jail for that, but will almost certainly lose their job.  (Again, just like a CAP member - we can refuse to obey a commander's directive, but will face the consequences in terms of CAP "discipline."

/quibble

I am saying that cap is playing, as in with a mission number, so the highest cap person their goes to the incident commander to get orders

Many Wings develop MOU's for instances that are being referenced hypothetically. 

Quote from: NCRblues on October 14, 2009, 09:10:54 PM
So then, let's say you're on scene, you're the highest ranking cap person there, but you're not the incident commander, let's say, oh fema director is. He/she comes up to you and says hey as Incident commander I need you and your troops to do this, you say, wait hold on I need to contact my chain of command? Isn't that what the ICS was designed to go around? So all chains of command, in an emergency, are consolidated?

When CAP is involved, members work under the CAP IC system (which is very similar to the FEMA system but only CAP), and the CAP IC in turn is part of the big game.

CAP IC is in the same level as the other agencies as an asset. CAP members only mobilize under CAP IC, not FEMA IC. I know it's a bit confusing, but that's how the system works. At least that's how it works in California.