Physical requirements for CAP ground teams

[RiverAux]

As discussed in the NIMS thread a while back, it seems likely that as part of the NIMS requirements CAP ground team members will begin to have to meet some sort of physical test to be certified under NIMS.  The SAR job titles document seems to give a lot of leeway in this area, but does give a few examples of what would probably count from existing programs.  I looked these up to see the sort of thing that CAP might institute

Colorado Wilderness SAR standards: 
Type 1:  Walk 3 miles over level terrain in 60 minutes with 25 lb pack.
Type 2&3: Walk 2 miles over level terrain in 40 minutes with 25 lb pack

NWCG Ardurous Pack Test: 3 miles with 45 lb pack in 45 minutes.

What percent of ucrrent CAP ground team members do you think would probably fail tests along those lines? 

[JohnKachenmeister]

I could do the first two, but not the "Arduous" one.

[Chris Jacobs]

I am a ground team member and i know that i can do the 3 miles in 45 minuets.  i am going to encourag the rest of the GT cadets in my squadron to be able to do the same.

[Major Lord]

As discussed in the NIMS thread a while back, it seems likely that as part of the NIMS requirements CAP ground team members will begin to have to meet some sort of physical test to be certified under NIMS.  The SAR job titles document seems to give a lot of leeway in this area, but does give a few examples of what would probably count from existing programs.  I looked these up to see the sort of thing that CAP might institute

Colorado Wilderness SAR standards: 
Type 1:  Walk 3 miles over level terrain in 60 minutes with 25 lb pack.
Type 2&3: Walk 2 miles over level terrain in 40 minutes with 25 lb pack

NWCG Ardurous Pack Test: 3 miles with 45 lb pack in 45 minutes.

What percent of ucrrent CAP ground team members do you think would probably fail tests along those lines? 

Most of the Cadets and 3 or 4 Seniors!

[RiverAux]

I suspect that most cadets will be able to meet the requirements since PT is part of their regular program. 

[Chris Jacobs]

i think most cadets could probably pass the 1,2, and 3 levels but i think you would be surprised how few could pass the ardurous.

[arajca]

The NWCG Arduous test is used for wildland firefighters who are actually on the fire lines or directly attacking the fire.

[sardak]

The NWCG pack tests require walking at 4 MPH.  If you run or jog and are caught, you fail the test.  Typical walking speed on flat ground is 2.5 to 3 MPH.

NWCG also has ratings of moderate (2 miles, 30 minutes, 25 pound pack), light (1 mile, 16 minutes, no pack) and none (self explanatory - you pass if you don't do anything). 

Each wildland fire rating has one of these fitness ratings.  The rating is based on what the position is expected to do on a wildland fire incident.

Type III, IV and V ICs have to pass the arduous test.  Type I and II require none.
Safety officers and operations section chiefs have to pass moderate.
Air ops branch directors and plans sections chief are none.
Firefighters, strike team and task force leaders, as expected, require arduous.

The Colorado WSAR requirements were developed after much discussion, and were accepted only grudingly by some.  The main alternate position was using the NWCG requirements. 

Mike

[DNall]

See, this is where you get so much more expertise than I have. That's outstanding. As I understand it for WSAR you have to pass a certain level based on the incident level you're prepared to respond to.

There's also a page on the website that indicates FEMA is moving toward being the central credentialing agency. You submit a package showing you meet everything for the rating, FEMA issues you a card indicating that rating - probably a scanable thing w/ lots of data on it. Seems lik ehtis is in the very early stage & won't be happening for some itme. Just a heads up though that we reinforces we can't keep playing our own game and saying we are qual'd.

I'm glad to see a PFT for GTM. I don't know enough about the tests to comment, but based on the amount rucking I do already I don't think it'd be an issue. It will be a retention issue though. There's no way around it & you should get to a place where you can accept that cause we don't have a choice.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Type 2 and 3 are an average walking speed of 3 mph.  I know.  I do 1.5 - 2 miles 4 days a week on my treadmill.

[RiverAux]

As far as I can tell, nothing specific has come out of DHS regarding the fitness standards for SAR teams.  I still think they're leaving it up to the state or relevant agency, but in a quick look at some of the compliance instructions for states, didn't see anything on this topic in particular.  Obviously, CAP hasn't made any moves yet to implement any sort of fitness standards for GTMs.

Have any of you heard anything about your state government working on SAR-related fitness standards that your Wing might have to follow to participate in state-backed SAR missions? 

[Eclipse]

Instituting any physical requirements for ground teams beyond respiration and gravitational attraction would simply reduce the number of ground team members we have even further or produce lot of people participating "illegally".

I understand the intent with NIMS compliance, increased standards, and a general "raising of the bar". In most cases I support the idea conceptually, if not in all practices, but the reality is that we are not turning members away at the door, we have issues today just getting people to function at the standards we already have, and frankly, the majority of states never provide enough mission taskings in environments that require more ability than the average slacker suburbanite can handle.

You start raising the bar without raising the return, and we'll be looking at 57,000 members like THAT was the good old days.  There's only so much and so far members will go on the low ROI for their time before they say "enough".

The majority of our missions, even the longer-term, more aggressive ones, are done in vehicle-mounted fashion, or a less than brisk walk, the latter is self-limiting for the most part.

States with more aggressive SAR needs and agreements (i.e. desert climates where CAP is a legit responder agency) are free today to write local supplements to the ES requirements.

Remember, CAP is not the "mini-military" or even a first-responder agency, we are a secondary and tertiary asset tasked with providing fill-in and backup support to other agencies so the paid guys can do their jobs more effectively.  If we wore that hat more often and more proudly, we'd all be better off (and probably a lot busier).

[RiverAux]

Yep, no matter what type of test it is or how easy it is to pass we will lose some qualified GT members.  In regards to some members, thats probably a good thing for CAP and for them, while for others it would be questionable.  But, like with the other NIMS standards, its something CAP is going to have to get with whether we like it or not.  But, unlike the others, we will probably be able to set our own standards unless you're in a state that is going to get real aggressive about it. 

[lordmonar]

What NIMS standard?

I have read the draft typing standards....and they mention that the agency with jurisdiction may set Physical and medical standards....

So....until an agency of juridisciton says......"you must do 500 push ups to be able to help us with this SAR", CAP is meeting the standards.

[RiverAux]

Did I say there were specific standards approved anywhere?  No. This thread started with examples of some physical standards used by groups cited as examples in the NIMS documents. 

But, it is clear that at some point we're going to have to meet some standards.

Personally, I think that the "Authority Having Jurisdiction" language is a little unclear, especially in how it might apply to CAP.  You could read it to say that CAP could set its own standards or (and more likely) that each state could set its own.  But, you might also read it to say that any government agency, including city or county, could set its own standards.  This could result in a pretty big hodgepodge of standards that would sort of defeat the purpose.   

[Short Field]

But, like with the other NIMS standards, its something CAP is going to have to get with whether we like it or not.  

The other NIMS standards are approved and we are implementing them.

[RiverAux]

Actually, we're implementing SOME of them -- we're not making all of the mission staff recommended by NIMS take the 300-400 courses (but thats for a different thread). 

[lordmonar]

I thought that we are going to make all the recommended staff positions take 300-400...but we are going to phase it in over time.

As it is...we are going to be hard pressed to get the IC and other top 3 postions all compliant as it is.   300-400 is a week long endevor that may not fit into a lot of peoples schedule.

[_]

300-400 is a week long endevor that may not fit into a lot of peoples schedule.

It doesn't have to be.  I took ICS 300 in a class taught by CAP members over 2 weekends.  The weekends were spread out amongst 2 months so the whole process wasn't very encumbering in terms of time taken.

Back to the subject of physical standards.  I am in favor of some form of standards.  If nothing else you need a standard to make sure someone doesn't have a heart attack just walking up a hill.  I am not a fit man by any means so don't think this is coming from a triathlete.  In the civilian team I'm a member of we are required to do the 2 miles in 40 minutes with our pack on.  I did it on rolling terrain with 10 minutes to spare.  That kind of standard is not overly cumbersome.

[davedove]

Back to the subject of physical standards.  I am in favor of some form of standards.  If nothing else you need a standard to make sure someone doesn't have a heart attack just walking up a hill.  I am not a fit man by any means so don't think this is coming from a triathlete.  In the civilian team I'm a member of we are required to do the 2 miles in 40 minutes with our pack on.  I did it on rolling terrain with 10 minutes to spare.  That kind of standard is not overly cumbersome.

I could go along with a standard like that, maybe not those exact numbers, but something similar.  For instance, perhaps 2 miles in 40 minutes with 24 hour gear.  I'm a good sized guy too, but I wouldn't have any problem with that standard.

I don't think we need a super tough standard with full 72 hour gear or anything.  After all, we are CAP, not the infantry.

[davidsinn]

Our own standards recommend the ability to hike 6 miles with full 72 gear. That's not enforced nor do I think it should be. But I agree that we need some standard. I've got a 5'-6" 380lb GTM(T) that I wonder about.

[_]

Back to the subject of physical standards.  I am in favor of some form of standards.  If nothing else you need a standard to make sure someone doesn't have a heart attack just walking up a hill.  I am not a fit man by any means so don't think this is coming from a triathlete.  In the civilian team I'm a member of we are required to do the 2 miles in 40 minutes with our pack on.  I did it on rolling terrain with 10 minutes to spare.  That kind of standard is not overly cumbersome.

I could go along with a standard like that, maybe not those exact numbers, but something similar.  For instance, perhaps 2 miles in 40 minutes with 24 hour gear.  I'm a good sized guy too, but I wouldn't have any problem with that standard.

I don't think we need a super tough standard with full 72 hour gear or anything.  After all, we are CAP, not the infantry.

In the example I gave we were carrying our regular field gear.  Think 24hr gear without as much extra stuff you don't really need.  I definitely don't like the idea of doing it with my 72hr gear.  My 72hr gear is set up for the normal situation where you walk 100ft to the campsite and plop it down, so all my stuff is big and heavy but comfortable.  

Having some kind of standard is also good because it insures you carry only what you are capable of carrying over a distance.  I've seen so many cadets with E-tools and extra stuff slung off their pistol belts (seniors too, but mainly cadets).  By going through this you can also evaluate what you can and can't carry in terms of the extra stuff you may want to carry.  Another possible standard is a longer distance but untimed.  When I went to the NJWG GSAR school in 97 we had to complete a 10 kilometer march along the tank trails of Ft Dix.  It was good in that you learned what to carry and what not to and why you want to make sure your gear fit well.

[RiverAux]

I think that some sort of timed hike with 24-hour gear makes sense.  As to the exact time, I couldn't really hazard a guess, but we would need to have some sort of realistic minimum weight set for the 24 hour gear to make sure people don't go out with hardly loaded packs.  I think 2-3 miles would be appropriate. 

[Short Field]

I took ICS 300 in a class taught by CAP members over 2 weekends. 

That is great if you have CAP members who are qualified to teach the course.   If you have people who are only qualified to read the powerpoint slides, then just email the slides to everyone and sign them off.

Back to the subject of physical standards.  I am in favor of some form of standards.  If nothing else you need a standard to make sure someone doesn't have a heart attack just walking up a hill. 

Sounds like a self-corrrecting issue.  Even if a person can't keep up over rough terrain, there is a mission for them even if it is just remaining back at the vehicles.    Physical standards for PICs would make more sense - if he passes out you have a real problem.   If the old fat guy passes out on the ground, you might get "Save" credit and see a real mission. 

[lordmonar]

Also there is the issue of higher ICS postions.

Planning and Operations both require you to be at one time GTM3 qualified.

So we got some real sharp air crew member who is ready to take on the very important job of PSC...but because he can't pass the PT test he is forever barred from moving up in the chain.

As for the safety issue....your AOBD/GTL always can make the call....."sorry I just don't think you are physically fit enough to be on the team for your safety and the sake of the mission you should stay behind."

[RiverAux]

Don't worry -- if we go with NIMS and have standards for ground teams, there will also be physical standards for the aircrews.  They've got the same sort of vague requirement as ground teams. 

As for pilots wanting to be PSCs -- they can meet the ground requirement by being a UDF team member or a GTM.  I suspect that there will also be UDF physical standards, but I would think they would be very, very easy to meet since we're not really talking about the same sort of work. 

[_]

I suspect that there will also be UDF physical standards, but I would think they would be very, very easy to meet since we're not really talking about the same sort of work. 

Yeah, you have to be able to walk all the way up to someone's door and knock loud enough to wake them up at 2am.  You fail if you don't get the proper volume out of the knocks.   

[RiverAux]

A few 16 oz curls will strengthen up those knocks!

[Short Field]

I suspect that there will also be UDF physical standards,

I suspect we will not have to worrry about NIMS physical requirments.

[Eclipse]

I suspect that there will also be UDF physical standards,

I suspect we will not have to worrry about NIMS physical requirements.

Ditto, or at least none worth getting worked up about...

[isuhawkeye]

since ESF #9 places inland sar under the department o the interior does that mean that teams participating in missing person searches will have to meet park service pt standards? sarcasm intended

[Eclipse]

since ESF #9 places inland sar under the department o the interior does that mean that teams participating in missing person searches will have to meet park service pt standards? sarcasm intended

Only YOU can find an ELT...

[Tubacap]

I know it is early still, but that is the funniest thing I have seen all day.

[NavLT]

I think this all goes back to are we really prepared to do the job or are we pencil whipping people who want the title.

I see very few places practicing 24 Hour, 72 Hour ops so people are getting qualified for chatting about it but when the big Mission comes are they going to become a casualty for attempting to do something for the first time?

With the PSC and OSC I have found very little chance of training to even do the job because the only people qualifed to train are the Old Style MCs and most of them lived in a Me and the Other guy at base world.  They have no structure in place to practice PSC and OSC outside of the fabled once a year Wing wide GTE.  If you can only get a practice shot at a Secton cheif once per year I am not sure where they plan on finding the next generation of ICs.

[Tubacap]

That is where I am at right now.  I am a PSC (T), but can't find any missions worth having a PSC on.  The IC can go through and do some of this stuff, but there really is not a good way to do it effectively and play within CAP.  I can do several exercises though through the county.  I guess it's just a matter of coordinating with the DO and getting a mission number for those mission so that they can count.

[N Harmon]

Have you considered doing some tabletop exercises? The qualified trainers could come up with a scenario and then have the trainees do their thing. There is no reason to limit PSC and OSC training to organized SAREXs.

[NavLT]

I did not say that I did not see the ability to do the training, I said that organizationally I see very little of it happening.  In Virginia the ICs I worked with had bi-weekly table top missions to work on base staff skills and it was very effective.

I just worry about where the next generation is comming from when the old generation is not actively working to create it.  In the Nav one of the primary responsibilities of an officer was to train his replacement, not a bad credo.

It has gotten so bad I was recently copied on a wing asking neighboring wings to cover missions due to a lack of ICs.  No mater how they dress it up the problem existed a long time before the last IC or 2 retired.  And imagine the stress of accepting a mission from out of state with next to no knowledge of the region or the assets.. Ouch.

I think that National needs to take a look at "how are we ensuring quality and quantity of training" and the results.

V/R
LT J.

[RiverAux]

Our own standards recommend the ability to hike 6 miles with full 72 gear. That's not enforced nor do I think it should be. But I agree that we need some standard. I've got a 5'-6" 380lb GTM(T) that I wonder about.

Somehow I missed this when it was first posted.  Do you have a citation where CAP requires a 6 mile hike with a 72hour pack?

But the main reason I was bringing this thread back was because in another thread it was stated that the SAR typing document was going back for major revision and since that was the original reference for PT-type requirements that started this thread, I was wondering if there was any specific information available about was going on in that area. 

And to extend the original purpose of this thread a bit.... In looking at task O-0502 Participate in a Litter Carry  I think it would make sense to have some sort of strength requirement as part of the GT standards.  Not sure what would be the best individual test for this since this is more of a team requirement, but we would want something to make sure that everyone could carry their own weight (so to speak).

[sardak]

Wow, RA, you must be bored to be dragging up a 10 month old thread.

The revised NIMS credentialing, as it looked a year ago when last sent out for comment, left the physical fitness requirement up to the agency having jurisdiction (AHJ).

However, each position also had "recommended criteria." For physical fitness, several positions listed "develop a national fitness standard," for the land SAR positions, the recommendation was the NWCG Moderate level "pack test," and for the structural collapse positions the recommendation was several NFPA standards.

Who knows what they'll look like when they come out for the final round of public comment sometime (soon?).

The ASTM standard for basic land rescue team member, which passed its final vote and should be published shortly, calls out for the NWCG Moderate level. The ASTM basic land search team member leaves the fitness requirement up to the AHJ. It however, is out for review right now.

For those who won't read the previous posts in this thread, the NWCG Moderate level test is to walk 2 miles in 30 minutes on level ground with a 25 pound pack.

Mike

[RiverAux]

Wow, RA, you must be bored to be dragging up a 10 month old thread.

Not bored, but I wanted to ask the question and I know how some people get their nose out of joint if someone starts a new thread when there has been one even remotely like it used in the last 5 years. 

[RiverAux]

The revised NIMS credentialing, as it looked a year ago when last sent out for comment, left the physical fitness requirement up to the agency having jurisdiction (AHJ).

Incidentally, I've never been exactly clear on who the AHJ would be in regards to the CAP.  Would it be the state?  Would it be the federal government (since we're working for the AF)?  Would we have to meet both a federal standard and whatever the standard is in that state?  Could it even be a different standard if a county wanted to do something different?  Is CAP it's own "Agency"?

[sardak]

This is from the credentialing document:
AHJ (Authority Having Jurisdiction) used here means the legally mandated authority for the jurisdiction or the team/unit/agency itself but does not include commercial units or those not sponsored by a governmental AHJ.

So for CAP, the team/unit/agency would be CAP Inc., but our governmental sponsor is the USAF, so like with most of our policies and regs, the AHJ would be CAP-USAF.

However, an agency that requests CAP assistance would be the AHJ per the first clause. In that case, the requesting AHJ could require responding personnel to meet other requirements.  While I wouldn't say that's common, it occurs often in mutual aid incidents.

Mike

[RiverAux]

So, they key is that when this document becomes official and CAP has to come up with its own physical requirements that they actually go with something realistic so that state agencies won't feel compelled to impose their own standards on us.  So, if there is a recommended national standard, we better use it, rather than adopting a lesser one (as we have with some of our mission staff positions). 

[davidsinn]

Our own standards recommend the ability to hike 6 miles with full 72 gear. That's not enforced nor do I think it should be. But I agree that we need some standard. I've got a 5'-6" 380lb GTM(T) that I wonder about.

Somehow I missed this when it was first posted.  Do you have a citation where CAP requires a 6 mile hike with a 72hour pack?

Ground team member and leader reference text Pg 13

Your 72-hour pack is your life-line and existence. This should be designed for the long haul of at
least six or more miles; the longer and tougher assignments. Consider if you are doing this is
winter or mountainous terrain.

Granted it's talking about the 72 hour pack but it still implies that a GT should be able to hike 6 miles.

[RiverAux]

I agree that it is an implication rather than an actual requirement, but thanks for the quote.

[Spike]

Ground team member and leader reference text Pg 13

Your 72-hour pack is your life-line and existence. This should be designed for the long haul of at least six or more miles; the longer and tougher assignments. Consider if you are doing this is winter or mountainous terrain.

Granted it's talking about the 72 hour pack but it still implies that a GT should be able to hike 6 miles.

It depends on how you read it.  I think they pulled an arbitrary mile number from the air and wrote it down.  Why begin at six miles, why not five?  If we say that because the number they wrote down is what our teams must be able to do, then we must also all be qualified to walk in snow covered mountains (took it from the same paragraph!!!)

Logic and fact outweighs beliefs and opinions every time. 

[RADIOMAN015]

The revised NIMS credentialing, as it looked a year ago when last sent out for comment, left the physical fitness requirement up to the agency having jurisdiction (AHJ).

Incidentally, I've never been exactly clear on who the AHJ would be in regards to the CAP.  Would it be the state?  Would it be the federal government (since we're working for the AF)?  Would we have to meet both a federal standard and whatever the standard is in that state?  Could it even be a different standard if a county wanted to do something different?  Is CAP it's own "Agency"?

At this point in CAP, it really is a member's self determination of their fitness for performing a particular mission.   This applies to flight crews as well as ground team members.  Again why does the ground ES portion always seem to want to come up with more requirements, it's not like loads of (senior) members are joining your GT teams    (and frankly there probably needs to be a separate physical requirement e.g. not "special forces" for UDF, as opposed in the woods "camping out" ground teams.

I know in one state (Massachusetts) the MA State PD is the IC so to speak for any missing person searches per state law.  Any volunteers have to sign a waiver but also may have to submit to an "on scene"  medical exam IF there's a question by the IC of their physical capabilities to be a volunteer for the search.
RM       

[RiverAux]

Again why does the ground ES portion always seem to want to come up with more requirements,

We're talking about it because CAP is going to have to have its ground teams meet some sort of requirement as part of the implementation of national standards.  Obviously CAP has shown no interest in doing this on its own or we would already have something in place.  FYI, there will be aircrew fitness standards of some kind as well.

[arajca]

What having a physical test standard will do is separate the bling collectors from the operators, which will, in turn, provide a more realistic view of your deployable team strengths.

[RADIOMAN015]

What having a physical test standard will do is separate the bling collectors from the operators, which will, in turn, provide a more realistic view of your deployable team strengths.

I do see your point in this, but again there's really different types of missions for ground teams, (so there would be varying physical requirements) and in my opinion, most outside agencies don't see CAP ground teams as CAP strengths anyways.    CAP Aircraft support (and the trained personnel who support these flying misions) are our bread & butter with most outside agencies.

For the most part I see a lot of the ground team training/equipment hurdles versus actual missions assignments just doesn't justify all that training time & expense in the first place and again if you add too many requirements (including physical) than you just won't get the numbers (of senior members) you need to successfully deploy anyways  -- and frankly it really won't matter in the end as stated above.
RM 

     

[RADIOMAN015]

For the most part I see a lot of the ground team training/equipment hurdles versus actual missions assignments just doesn't justify all that training time & expense in the first place and again if you add too many requirements (including physical) than you just won't get the numbers (of senior members) you need to successfully deploy anyways  -- and frankly it really won't matter in the end as stated above.
RM 

In reflection of what I wrote above --  I'm going to temper down my comment above.  I think that ANY training that could help one survive in an emergency is worth undertaking.  I firmly believe that the ground ES training program is a definite retention tool for most cadet members.  I would like to see more senior members "motivated" to participate in at least up to the UDF ground team level.  (My prime de-motivation is the equipment required BUT I am working on it)  We've been talking about this at the squadron level, and how do we "sell" this program to senior members who physically can perform the tasks.
RM     

[wingnut55]

What are the age limitations??
I doubt that 15 year old cadets are allowed to be doing search and rescue in any State> And the military  only recruits 17 and older?? so I suspect NHQ Cannot get a handle on 5O states having there own rules. Maybe we should just can the entire ground team thing because it does not meet the National SAR guidelines anyway. I remember last year in Arizona the SAR people with the State told me that Cadets are forbidden to be officially involved in Ground searching something about State workers Comp Laws. Yes I remember Cadets actively involved in a mission 2 years ago!!

[maverik]

Uhh cadets in "cadet-friendly" states are allowed to do SAR.

[notaNCO forever]

What are the age limitations??
I doubt that 15 year old cadets are allowed to be doing search and rescue in any State> And the military  only recruits 17 and older?? so I suspect NHQ Cannot get a handle on 5O states having there own rules. Maybe we should just can the entire ground team thing because it does not meet the National SAR guidelines anyway. I remember last year in Arizona the SAR people with the State told me that Cadets are forbidden to be officially involved in Ground searching something about State workers Comp Laws. Yes I remember Cadets actively involved in a mission 2 years ago!!

The majority of GT members in my wing are cadets, and the cadets, for the most part, know more about working on a ground team than most of the senior members. I think maturity and the physical ability of someone is what is important for being on the ground team not the year they where born.

[rjfoxx]

I don't know much about the physical requirements for CAP ground teams (I'm still new to CAP), but I did work with with CAP Cadets on a ground search for a missing child.  I was the S-3 (Ops) for the 24th MP Bn, MA State Guard at the time.  Our teams consisted of about 5 Cadets and 5 State Guards MP's.  The child was found by MA State Police dogs...she had been murdered and raped.

[N Harmon]

I doubt that 15 year old cadets are allowed to be doing search and rescue in any State.

They are in Michigan.

Maybe we should just can the entire ground team thing because it does not meet the National SAR guidelines anyway.

Right, because there's no possible way we could ever meet National SAR guidelines, which are what?

[John Bryan]

What are the age limitations??
I doubt that 15 year old cadets are allowed to be doing search and rescue in any State> And the military  only recruits 17 and older?? so I suspect NHQ Cannot get a handle on 5O states having there own rules. Maybe we should just can the entire ground team thing because it does not meet the National SAR guidelines anyway. I remember last year in Arizona the SAR people with the State told me that Cadets are forbidden to be officially involved in Ground searching something about State workers Comp Laws. Yes I remember Cadets actively involved in a mission 2 years ago!!

Depends on the state. I know Indiana has no state laws against it. In fact our EMS comission certifies EMS First Responders starting at age 14.  I also know some city parks have lifeguards under 18 who do water searches.

If that is the law or rule I think AZ Wing should work with their state to change the law. Other states have.

[calguy]

In CAWG, I doubt like Alan Lord said there are more that just two or three and they are all LE or FD professionally. 

[us11cav]

As one of the people involved in the recent discovery of Cessna N2700Q (after a 2 1/2 year search), I've been sharing some of the things we learned with you good CAP people. I appreciate your warm reception. This thread interested me because of something I experienced while attempting to check out an object found in one of my aerial photos during the first year of the search. The terrain was rugged, and it was difficult for an old fart like me to get down there without breaking something. Loose scree and a steepening slope prevented me from covering the last 100 yards, but subsequent flyovers showed this object had to be a white rock. (http://digitalbucket.net/view/d44d7e6fedaca5c0/172-closeup.jpg)

Getting back out was one of the hardest things I've done, and it wasn't just the bad footing. I'm talking ALTITUDE. 
It makes all the difference in those tests you've been discussing here. Compare clambering out of a hole at 6,000' to doing it at sea-level; makes a world of difference.

NOTE: The actual wreck of N2700Q was in a steep draw, a little over 3 miles east of there. Access in was via Loy Canyon Trail, starting at 4,700' and climbing 1,000 feet in 4 miles to where it crosses the bottom of the draw. Then it's off-trail, up the draw for 1/2 mile, climbing another 500 feet through dense deadfall and puckerbrush to reach the wreck site. I don't think I'd want to attempt that with a 45 pound back on a warm Arizona day!

Just another perspective I thought you might appreciate.

[arajca]

Getting back out was one of the hardest things I've done, and it wasn't just the bad footing. I'm talking ALTITUDE. 
It makes all the difference in those tests you've been discussing here. Compare clambering out of a hole at 6,000' to doing it at sea-level; makes a world of difference.

That's why the old Red Card Run (Wildland Fire Firghters test) had an adjustment for altitude.

[arajca]

Here is some info on the physical tests wildland fire personnel must complete.
"The Pack Test" Work Capacity Testing for Wildland Firefighters: Ensuring Wildland Firefighter Safety
I think the "Moderate" level would be appropriate for most of our GT operations.

The Colorado Search and Rescue Board has recommended the following:
Type III GT - 2 mile hike over level ground with a 25lb pack in 40 minutes
Type II GT - same
Type I GT -  3 mile hike over level ground with a 25lb pack in 60 minutes

These take into account the affects of altitude in Colorado - many SAR teams are based at over 7000'.

[notaNCO forever]

The Colorado Search and Rescue Board has recommended the following:
Type III GT - 2 mile hike over level ground with a 25lb pack in 40 minutes
Type II GT - same
Type I GT -  3 mile hike over level ground with a 25lb pack in 60 minutes

These take into account the affects of altitude in Colorado - many SAR teams are based at over 7000'.

I've done that in altitudes higher than that, so I guess I would be good. I know lots of GT members who could not do that though.

[Eclipse]

I'd say the above is completely reasonable, and would be in keeping with our actual duties and mission, since even UDF guys have to walk around the ramps and neighborhoods.

[us11cav]

Wildland firefighters, huh?... I can sure see how THEY would need to move, and move FAST.

Lots of talk about level terrain here. How about slope tests? (Include me out, LOL!)

[arajca]

Wildland firefighters, huh?... I can sure see how THEY would need to move, and move FAST.

Lots of talk about level terrain here. How about slope tests? (Include me out, LOL!)

The problem with slope tests is finding the proper slopes with sufficient length. I can find almost any slope with plenty of length in the mountains where I live, but in the flat lands, it can be a challange. But level - or mostly level - terrain is fairly easy to find anywhere.

Besides, anything above 10% and you're going to need ropes and stuff. Plus mucho training.

[sardak]

Andrew, check your numbers. 10% is about a 6° slope. Loaded unit coal trains struggle going up that. Your neighborhood medevac outfit will land on a slope up to 10°, which is almost 18%. From observer training everyone should remember that the span of your fist at arm's length is about 10°. Low angle rescue is generally considered rescue in which the load is supported mainly by itself and not the rope rescue system. At 30° (58%) the load is supported equally between itself and the rescue system. Black diamond ski runs start at about 35° (70%).

For the current wildland fire pack test, here are the added times, in seconds, for altitude:
                                                   Test
Altitude                Arduous       Moderate         Light
4000-5000 ft            30                20                 10
5000-6000 ft            45                30                 15
6000-7000 ft            60                40                 20
7000-8000 ft            75                50                 25
8000-9000 ft            90                60                 30
Base times:
Arduous - 45 lb pack, 3 miles in 45 minutes, walking on level ground.
Moderate - 25 lb pack, 2 miles in 30 minutes, walking on level ground.
Light - no pack, 1 mile in 16 minutes, walking on level ground.
These are at a speed of 4 miles per hour.

The Colorado SAR Board test is the moderate pack test at 3 miles per hour.

Forgot this the first time. For the studs, here are the smoke jumper tests:
On the first day of smokejumper training candidates must do seven pull-ups/chin-ups, 45 sit-ups, 25 push-ups, and a 1.5 mile run in less than 11 minutes (the training site is at 5000'). The test is taken in one time frame with 5-minute breaks between specific exercises.

In addition to the standard arduous test, they must pass the pack-out test:
110 pounds of smokejumper equipment, 3 miles in 90 minutes, walking on level ground.

Mike