Physical requirements for CAP ground teams

[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.