emergency service missions

[usafcap1]

If you could add more missions to CAPs emergency services and operations repertoire what would you add?   

[Spaceman3750]

The only limits of what we can do are the things that are explicitly prohibited (specialty rescue, assistance to LE, etc). Everything else is fair game given that we coordinate with the responsible agency for proper training and credentialing.

[RADIOMAN015]

I think CAP needs to stay within a reasonable mission "box".   The issue with missions is you have to have the sustainability (trained personnel) for those missions.  Sometimes, the local things are due to the efforts of one or two motivated individuals, when they leave that program will likely die.

I think anything to do with AIR support is ripe for expansion.  (Along with the typical mission base functions that support the air, including the new photo ops editing function)  The ground team field operations side of CAP still has really no strategic direction changes and is basically for the most part just a cadet retention tool (with perhaps with the exception of some real UDF team type activity).
RM

[Eclipse]

The ground team field operations side of CAP still has really no strategic direction changes and is basically for the most part just a cadet retention tool

Not in the wings actually engaged in actual SAR/DR.

Please insure you're speaking only for the places you have personal knowledge.

[Woodsy]

The prereq's for GOBD include GTL, which you need at least GTM3 to getm

We would have a lot more qualified IC's if that were changed.  Just saying, the only reason anyone around these parts qualifies as GTL or GTM3 is a path to GOBD, so they can then go on to IC. 

We have lot's of UDF missions around here, but in Florida, any sort of situation where one would need a 72 hour pack is hard to fathom. 

I would propose that GOBD require a GTL OR UDF. 

Why would I want to waste 4 SAREX's (2 sorties each for GTM3 and GTL) doing something useless that I'll never do again just to jump through the hoop on the route to IC?  No thanks, I'd rather fly anyways.  I  think we only have about 10 IC1's in the wing, and maybe 40 or so IC's period.  This process is hindering others from completing the process. 

[lordmonar]

I think you have your causality backwards.

If we did not make GTL or GTM3 a prereq for PSC (GOBD and MS or AOBD and GTM3)....it is not that we would get more ICs but we whould have even less qualified Ground teams.

The problem is that there is no OPLAN.   No one at any level is really tasked to provide X number of ICs, X number of OSCs/AOBDs/GOBDs/PSCs/MROs/FSC/etc and so on.....let alone X number of trained aircrews or trained and equiped ground teams.

[Spaceman3750]

The prereq's for GOBD include GTL, which you need at least GTM3 to getm

We would have a lot more qualified IC's if that were changed.  Just saying, the only reason anyone around these parts qualifies as GTL or GTM3 is a path to GOBD, so they can then go on to IC. 

We have lot's of UDF missions around here, but in Florida, any sort of situation where one would need a 72 hour pack is hard to fathom. 

I would propose that GOBD require a GTL OR UDF. 

Why would I want to waste 4 SAREX's (2 sorties each for GTM3 and GTL) doing something useless that I'll never do again just to jump through the hoop on the route to IC?  No thanks, I'd rather fly anyways.  I  think we only have about 10 IC1's in the wing, and maybe 40 or so IC's period.  This process is hindering others from completing the process.

You don't need GTL for PSC/OSC. Just AOBD+GTM3 or GBD+MS.

[Ed Bos]

I think CAP needs to stay within a reasonable mission "box".   The issue with missions is you have to have the sustainability (trained personnel) for those missions.  Sometimes, the local things are due to the efforts of one or two motivated individuals, when they leave that program will likely die.

This is exactly the mentality that will cause CAP to eventually become redundant and dissolve.

CAP needs to continue to partner with the AF, DoD and other agencies to find ways we can expand our mission set and stay ready, reliable, and relevant. Increasing our mission-set while maintaining our core capabilities is a huge part of that.

I think anything to do with AIR support is ripe for expansion.  (Along with the typical mission base functions that support the air, including the new photo ops editing function) 

I don't know what editing function you're talking about (have a link handy?), but I don't disagree with this sentiment.

The ground team field operations side of CAP still has really no strategic direction changes and is basically for the most part just a cadet retention tool (with perhaps with the exception of some real UDF team type activity).
RM

You're dead wrong. In several areas around the country CAP works closely with state and local agencies to greatly increase ground SAR capabilities. Even in the Massachusetts Wing (your wing, isn't it?), there are several mission developments that are driving training and tasking changes to keep the ground side of the house moving in a "strategic direction."  I was on the MAWG ES Staff a few years ago when we were working closely with the Mass State Police to showcase our capabilities and training, and I know that CAP still works in conjunction with them and MEMA.

What makes you think that any portion of Emergency Services is a "cadet retention tool." That seems like an awfully ignorant thing to say.

[Woodsy]

Agree with you on the quotas.  I know of that type of thing that is done on the squadron level, where the commander states his goal for the year is to train up x number of aircrews, x UDF teams, etc, but I'm not aware of anything from higher up.  If you ask me, I think that would be a great initiative at the wing level.

As far as having less ground teams, you say that like it's a problem, and in some areas, I'm sure it very well would be.  However, I think 90% of CAP ELT searches can be done by UDF qualified members and don't require a GT rating.  Around here, it's 100%.  I would glady trade my ground team, which has never been used, for another qualified IC.  The hoops to jump through for GTM/GTL are just too much considering the very rare use of them, and the UDF requirements would provide a GOBD with what he needed to know anyways. 

So make UDF a substitute prereq for GOBD, and we'll have more members willing to train for the higher level positions.  You can always say, "Hey, I still need to have a ground team or 2 available" and train them up.

[Woodsy]

The prereq's for GOBD include GTL, which you need at least GTM3 to getm

We would have a lot more qualified IC's if that were changed.  Just saying, the only reason anyone around these parts qualifies as GTL or GTM3 is a path to GOBD, so they can then go on to IC. 

We have lot's of UDF missions around here, but in Florida, any sort of situation where one would need a 72 hour pack is hard to fathom. 

I would propose that GOBD require a GTL OR UDF. 

Why would I want to waste 4 SAREX's (2 sorties each for GTM3 and GTL) doing something useless that I'll never do again just to jump through the hoop on the route to IC?  No thanks, I'd rather fly anyways.  I  think we only have about 10 IC1's in the wing, and maybe 40 or so IC's period.  This process is hindering others from completing the process.

You don't need GTL for PSC/OSC. Just AOBD+GTM3 or GBD+MS.

I didn't say you needed it for PSC.OSC...  I said for GOBD, which you do need GTM3/GTL for. 

[JeffDG]

The prereq's for GOBD include GTL, which you need at least GTM3 to getm

We would have a lot more qualified IC's if that were changed.  Just saying, the only reason anyone around these parts qualifies as GTL or GTM3 is a path to GOBD, so they can then go on to IC. 

We have lot's of UDF missions around here, but in Florida, any sort of situation where one would need a 72 hour pack is hard to fathom. 

I would propose that GOBD require a GTL OR UDF. 

Why would I want to waste 4 SAREX's (2 sorties each for GTM3 and GTL) doing something useless that I'll never do again just to jump through the hoop on the route to IC?  No thanks, I'd rather fly anyways.  I  think we only have about 10 IC1's in the wing, and maybe 40 or so IC's period.  This process is hindering others from completing the process.

You don't need GTL for PSC/OSC. Just AOBD+GTM3 or GBD+MS.

Don't need GTM3 for PSC, AOBD+UDF is just fine.

[Spaceman3750]

The prereq's for GOBD include GTL, which you need at least GTM3 to getm

We would have a lot more qualified IC's if that were changed.  Just saying, the only reason anyone around these parts qualifies as GTL or GTM3 is a path to GOBD, so they can then go on to IC. 

We have lot's of UDF missions around here, but in Florida, any sort of situation where one would need a 72 hour pack is hard to fathom. 

I would propose that GOBD require a GTL OR UDF. 

Why would I want to waste 4 SAREX's (2 sorties each for GTM3 and GTL) doing something useless that I'll never do again just to jump through the hoop on the route to IC?  No thanks, I'd rather fly anyways.  I  think we only have about 10 IC1's in the wing, and maybe 40 or so IC's period.  This process is hindering others from completing the process.

You don't need GTL for PSC/OSC. Just AOBD+GTM3 or GBD+MS.

I didn't say you needed it for PSC.OSC...  I said for GOBD, which you do need GTM3/GTL for.

How can someone direct several teams if they don't know how to lead a single one?

[RADIOMAN015]

Bold comments

I think CAP needs to stay within a reasonable mission "box".   The issue with missions is you have to have the sustainability (trained personnel) for those missions.  Sometimes, the local things are due to the efforts of one or two motivated individuals, when they leave that program will likely die.

This is exactly the mentality that will cause CAP to eventually become redundant and dissolve.

CAP needs to continue to partner with the AF, DoD and other agencies to find ways we can expand our mission set and stay ready, reliable, and relevant. Increasing our mission-set while maintaining our core capabilities is a huge part of that.

Expand doing what   Basically what you see now is what CAP will be doing in ES for AF/DOD in the future.   Now will we get some additional high tech items like those FLIR and video camera equipment, etc surely that possible, but it still is the same missions just with some new technology added.  Nothing really has changed in CAP core missions since its' founding, perhaps just methods 

I think anything to do with AIR support is ripe for expansion.  (Along with the typical mission base functions that support the air, including the new photo ops editing function) 

I don't know what editing function you're talking about (have a link handy?), but I don't disagree with this sentiment.
Lets see we send up a plane with someone sitting in it and he/she takes some pictures, they come back to mission base and the photos are downloaded and join together with some software.  Although, I heard some rumors that they want to do this while flying, which should interesting, especially from a quality control standpoint, what we do need is another set of eyes looking at it prior to release to the customer.   The guy/gal on the ground doesn't necessarily have to be an airborne photographer.   Also if the aircraft took a vehicle GPS with them they also would have a better idea of where they were and wouldn't even have to refer to charts while flying around taking photos (actually same goes for ground teams in the photo recon mode, have a vehicle GPS with you so you have a perspective of where the roads/addresses where). 

The ground team field operations side of CAP still has really no strategic direction changes and is basically for the most part just a cadet retention tool (with perhaps with the exception of some real UDF team type activity).
RM

You're dead wrong. In several areas around the country CAP works closely with state and local agencies to greatly increase ground SAR capabilities. Even in the Massachusetts Wing (your wing, isn't it?), there are several mission developments that are driving training and tasking changes to keep the ground side of the house moving in a "strategic direction."  I was on the MAWG ES Staff a few years ago when we were working closely with the Mass State Police to showcase our capabilities and training, and I know that CAP still works in conjunction with them and MEMA.

The MA wing doesn't do anything directly with the State PD, the state PD by the state law conducts all the missing person ground searches in the Commonwealth.  They are much better equipped with helicopters that have FLIR as well as spot lights and can find lost people in minutes versus hours with this technology.   They also have dogs that can sniff things out.  MA wing is not certified for any missing person searches in the state, and there's been talk about certification in the distant past, BUT this got dropped when the interested wing staffer moved on   

Well the ground side surely can go take pictures for photo recon (even phones with cameras work fine for that).  You really don't need large numbers of people for that mission, 2 just as in UDF team would work fine.  Locally I guess shelter assistance might be possible and maybe a point of (relief supplies) distribution.  I think there's one squadron in the wing that worked on CERT qualification for it's members -- will be interesting to see how they get utilized in the community. (and it should be noted that CERT is much less expensive to the member in regards to time & equipment requirements)

What makes you think that any portion of Emergency Services is a "cadet retention tool." That seems like an awfully ignorant thing to say.

Well that's because that what's it is.  :angel: Even one of your former NESA instructors, who was in my squadron used to tell me that.    All this SAR ground team actual activity (which you train people at NESA for), must really be secret OPS, because in almost every press release for quite some time it seemed like local/county public safety officials were the personnel responding on the ground side to the aircraft crashes, etc.  Surely CAP aircraft were of significant usefulness in these missions.   Ground teams were of NO use.   It is what it is Ed ---  Surely IF the cadets get good knowledge/training out of this that will help them in an emergency in the future, all is not lost, and we should encourage them to take advantage of all training opportunities.  We've had a fair number of cadets/seniors go to NESA, and they were impressed with the training.    From my perspective in my area for most adults, (the ground team training) not worth the time or money to spend. 
RM     

[Eclipse]

All this SAR ground team actual activity (which you train people at NESA for), must really be secret OPS, because in almost every press release for quite some time it seemed like local/county public safety officials were the personnel responding on the ground side to the aircraft crashes, etc.

Again, speak for your own wing's shortcomings, not assumptions this is true nationwide.

In most states the EMA's and Sheriff's departments are the primary agency for the initial call, that doesn't mean that in a lot of states we
don't work with them.

[RADIOMAN015]

All this SAR ground team actual activity (which you train people at NESA for), must really be secret OPS, because in almost every press release for quite some time it seemed like local/county public safety officials were the personnel responding on the ground side to the aircraft crashes, etc.

Again, speak for your own wing's shortcomings, not assumptions this is true nationwide.

In most states the EMA's and Sheriff's departments are the primary agency for the initial call, that doesn't mean that in a lot of states we
don't work with them.

OK so lets use your wing, how many times have ground teams been called out to do "ground team" normal CAP trained tasks in the last year  (can you come up with the total man hours)    BTW filling sandbags doesn't count.
RM   

[Eclipse]

filling sandbags doesn't count.

I'm not having this conversation with you, if you want the numbers, go check the legislative days pamphlets.

You also don't get to define what is, or isn't, a CAP DR mission.

[RADIOMAN015]

filling sandbags doesn't count.

I'm not having this conversation with you, if you want the numbers, go check the legislative days pamphlets.

You also don't get to define what is, or isn't, a CAP DR mission.

Ahh, almost forgot about that.    Again the reality of this is for the most part CAP ground teams (other than specialized UDF teams), are not being utilized for the normal NESA/CAP tasks they have been trained for.   

You can get volunteers right off the street or for that matter and get them to fill sandbags -- ain't much training required for that.    My guess is CAP is so rabid about using their ground teams for doing "something" that surely this type of activity will be used.   Frankly this is more of a CERT activity, and we don't necessary need our personnel meeting GT requirements to fulfill this type of task (or many other tasks in a community)  In fact if we are using GT qualifications for community support likely we are artificially limiting our available personnel resources.   Again, I not against CAP filling sandbags, but right now that isn't a GT task as defined in current training/ops regulations.         
RM   

[Spaceman3750]

filling sandbags doesn't count.

I'm not having this conversation with you, if you want the numbers, go check the legislative days pamphlets.

You also don't get to define what is, or isn't, a CAP DR mission.

Ahh, almost forgot about that.    Again the reality of this is for the most part CAP ground teams (other than specialized UDF teams), are not being utilized for the normal NESA/CAP tasks they have been trained for.   

You can get volunteers right off the street or for that matter and get them to fill sandbags -- ain't much training required for that.    My guess is CAP is so rabid about using their ground teams for doing "something" that surely this type of activity will be used.   Frankly this is more of a CERT activity, and we don't necessary need our personnel meeting GT requirements to fulfill this type of task (or many other tasks in a community)  In fact if we are using GT qualifications for community support likely we are artificially limiting our available personnel resources.   Again, I not against CAP filling sandbags, but right now that isn't a GT task as defined in current training/ops regulations.         
RM

INWG invited my wing to come help them sandbag last year. Only GES was required. Moral of the story: some parts of the country apparently aren't as messed up as yours is.

I wouldn't expect that the folks helping the ARC set up and run a shelter would all be GTM. However, if the ARC says "OK, now go to this disaster zone and let us know how bad it is" I would definitely want qualified GTMs, simply because it's just as austere an environment as wilderness is.

At the eval the AF wanted us to photograph potential shelters, infrastructure, etc from the ground. I suspect that we will be adding this capability to our talking points soon.

[RiverAux]

What?  Now we're saying that CAP's ground SAR capability is being fully utilized across most of the country and that there are only a few Wings where it isn't being used very much?  Is this just a reaction to the person saying it (Radioman) because in pretty much every thread on CAP Talk that discusses ground SAR it is almost universally recognized that we're not being used fully because of rcodyomh adequate local resources (mostly on the left coast, it seems) or lack of CAP interest in developing the relationships necessary.

There is no need to develop a whole lot of new ES missions for CAP when ground SAR is one that we are already trained for and represent the largest single organization in the country involved in, but for which we are rarely utilized.  If we really made GSAR a high profile, high priority mission and worked with the locals, we could probably have more actual missions every year than we ever realized from missing airplanes. 

And while I wouldn't say ground teams are only a cadet retention tool, they certainly can play a big factor in recruiting (depending on the squadron).  As far as retention, the cadets that get hyped up about ground teams are probably more likely to leave once they realize that they're not going to get a lot of actual opportunities to use these skills.  In that way, they probably hurt retention. 

All that being said, I have advocated for some time that CAP develop some sort of strategy for ground-based disaster response outlining what sorts of missions we should be training for.  We've got to be more than just a general labor force or no one is really going to be interested in using us for much.

[Woodsy]

The prereq's for GOBD include GTL, which you need at least GTM3 to getm

We would have a lot more qualified IC's if that were changed.  Just saying, the only reason anyone around these parts qualifies as GTL or GTM3 is a path to GOBD, so they can then go on to IC. 

We have lot's of UDF missions around here, but in Florida, any sort of situation where one would need a 72 hour pack is hard to fathom. 

I would propose that GOBD require a GTL OR UDF. 

Why would I want to waste 4 SAREX's (2 sorties each for GTM3 and GTL) doing something useless that I'll never do again just to jump through the hoop on the route to IC?  No thanks, I'd rather fly anyways.  I  think we only have about 10 IC1's in the wing, and maybe 40 or so IC's period.  This process is hindering others from completing the process.

You don't need GTL for PSC/OSC. Just AOBD+GTM3 or GBD+MS.

I didn't say you needed it for PSC.OSC...  I said for GOBD, which you do need GTM3/GTL for.

How can someone direct several teams if they don't know how to lead a single one?

That's my point.  There is no need for someone to direct several ground teams.  Because ground teams are never used.  Period.  Take note that as I said in my previous post, that I am in fact talking about my area.  I do realize that they are used in some places.  We utilize UDF teams here.  So by making UDF the prereq rather than ground team, you'd still have a GOBD that is familiar with the teams.  As it stands now, we have GOBD's that are not qualified in UDF directing several UDF teams. 

[ol'fido]

The prereq's for GOBD include GTL, which you need at least GTM3 to getm

We would have a lot more qualified IC's if that were changed.  Just saying, the only reason anyone around these parts qualifies as GTL or GTM3 is a path to GOBD, so they can then go on to IC. 

We have lot's of UDF missions around here, but in Florida, any sort of situation where one would need a 72 hour pack is hard to fathom. 

I would propose that GOBD require a GTL OR UDF. 

Why would I want to waste 4 SAREX's (2 sorties each for GTM3 and GTL) doing something useless that I'll never do again just to jump through the hoop on the route to IC?  No thanks, I'd rather fly anyways.  I  think we only have about 10 IC1's in the wing, and maybe 40 or so IC's period.  This process is hindering others from completing the process.

You don't need GTL for PSC/OSC. Just AOBD+GTM3 or GBD+MS.

I didn't say you needed it for PSC.OSC...  I said for GOBD, which you do need GTM3/GTL for.

How can someone direct several teams if they don't know how to lead a single one?

That's my point.  There is no need for someone to direct several ground teams.  Because ground teams are never used.  Period.  Take note that as I said in my previous post, that I am in fact talking about my area.  I do realize that they are used in some places.  We utilize UDF teams here.  So by making UDF the prereq rather than ground team, you'd still have a GOBD that is familiar with the teams.  As it stands now, we have GOBD's that are not qualified in UDF directing several UDF teams.

If a ground team is not DF trained, you're doing it wrong. Many moons ago, we did not have UDF teams. We had ground teams and that was it. If you needed to find an ELT you called out the Ground Team. If you suspected that it was probably a non-distress ELT, you might call a couple of senior member GTLs to go do the DF search. So at some point after the SARSATs went up and CAP started doing a LOT of ELT searches someone decided to codify this process and call these 2-3 man teams UDFs. UDF should be something you do on the way to becoming a GTM or GTL. It shouldn't be an end unto itself. To say that someone who is or has been GTM, GTL, and GBD qualified can't know how to manage an UDF team or teams is not realistic.

[Eclipse]

UDF teams are intended for a singular purpose - searching for aircraft at airports.

Period.

No missing persons, no SAR on grass, no DR.

If they arrive at the airport and the DF points at the woods behind them, they are done.

Stating that a wing doesn't use ground teams is ridiculous.  I'm not saying it's not true, but it's rediculous, and
I have no idea how a wing doing that could get through an eval.

[RiverAux]

[UDF should be something you do on the way to becoming a GTM or GTL. It shouldn't be an end unto itself.

Why not?  Although the need has obviously dropped significantly, UDF teams do fill a specific niche for what still remains one of our more common mission types.  There are quite a few senior members who are not physically capable of real hard core ground team missions that are just fine for UDF teams.  Also, plenty of units in urban areas which are just not going to ever get into real ground team work (either practice or real) but which do have ELT missions. 

Sure, they're not as capable as a ground team, but they do address a need. 

[RADIOMAN015]

UDF teams are intended for a singular purpose - searching for aircraft at airports.

Period.

No missing persons, no SAR on grass, no DR.

If they arrive at the airport and the DF points at the woods behind them, they are done.

Really , so if a UDF team arrives at an airport, it's about 1 1/2 hours to dusk (or even middle of the day), and cloud cover prevents the aircraft from seeing the ground.  The signal is not on the airport proper but in the woods nearby, we are going to wait for a ground team that may be  2 to 2 1/2 hours out    

I think that most IC's would allow the UDF to go into the woods based upon the above and perhaps even if it wasn't close to dusk -- perhaps the key is the "timely" response on scene of a ground team.   The purpose of our response is to potentially save a life by locating that emergency signal  -- the longer you wait the likely it will be a recovery versus a rescue      In my state/wing it's pretty much built up and generally there's roads relatively close to just about any of the woodlands.   Hey if you have a GPS (even if it's just a vehicle GPS) you can find your way back anyways.
RM

     

[manfredvonrichthofen]

If a UDF team is called out you should have a Ground Team at minimum on standby and they shouldn't be 2-21/2 hours out. You should never call out one team and call it sufficient. Even calling one ground team out isn't sufficient, you need to have multiple teams ready to move for any type of call. If you have an aircraft called out but don't have a request for a ground team you should still have ground teams ready and waiting, and you should be stressing the fact that you have ground teams ready and able and that they are a great asset.

[RADIOMAN015]

If a UDF team is called out you should have a Ground Team at minimum on standby and they shouldn't be 2-21/2 hours out. You should never call out one team and call it sufficient. Even calling one ground team out isn't sufficient, you need to have multiple teams ready to move for any type of call. If you have an aircraft called out but don't have a request for a ground team you should still have ground teams ready and waiting, and you should be stressing the fact that you have ground teams ready and able and that they are a great asset.

Most ground teams are cadet manned, depending upon the call out time they may not be available in a timely manner.   We've already established that in most wilderness type responses, the local/county/state/federal public safety agencies are responding on the ground, NOT CAP ground teams, although it is possible that a UDF might have to go with a public safety ground team.

Also in my state, the state police has a helicopter fleet with spot lights & FLIR capabilities, (weather permitting) I would think for a night time response around an airport, we would utilize that capability in conjunction with our UDF teams.    The fantasy of CAP GT's doing the rescuing, is just that, we should have qualified medical & fire/rescue folks with us or in very close proximity to respond IF we find a crashed aircraft.  I wouldn't want to be the IC (or the PIO) answering questions as to why the call to public safety wasn't made, especially in a near the airport type ELT.   
RM     

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Oh so I guess I was just dreaming in 2001 (I have been gone and out of CAP between 2003 and 2010) when our geound team was called out for a missing person and found them. And then I was dreaming three other times as well. Hmmm that explains a lot.

[RADIOMAN015]

Oh so I guess I was just dreaming in 2001 (I have been gone and out of CAP between 2003 and 2010) when our geound team was called out for a missing person and found them. And then I was dreaming three other times as well. Hmmm that explains a lot.

The frame of my response is based upon a potential aircraft crash incident.  We likely lack the appropriate equipment to perform a rescue. 

Hey If your state/counyt/local government allows you to go out on a missing person search and find someone that's great and I salute you for your servicer :clap: , BUT you do need the appropriate profession emergency medical backup close by even for these type of incidents.  Also I think that's an exception in CAP and most wings aren't providing ground teams for missing person searches.

Would you think from a strategic planning standpoint that CAP itself would keep very good track of what ES responses, air, ground, etc were being conducted and find out how the units got involved .  WMIRS will show a state reimbursement but doesn't necessarily provide the details
.   When we do good on the ground side we need to ensure that there's wide spread news releases of this.   (I think MD wing awhile back got some good media coverage).
RM     

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Of course, no doubt, but they don't have to be out with the team, just staged nearby. When we found one person we carried him out on a litter and then we got him to the medics at the ambulance. Until then though we took care to treat for hypothermia and shock... Granted we did what we could for shock like keeping him warm... And keeping him trendellenberg. But we still did what we could and that was finding him and taking care of him until we got him to medical care.

All that I'm saying is that there is a lot that GTs can do, with the right training and visibility and participation (all of which depends solely on the members) a ground team is for a lot more than retention. If you loose cadets because they don't get called out then it was explained wrong.

[Spaceman3750]

If a UDF team is called out you should have a Ground Team at minimum on standby and they shouldn't be 2-21/2 hours out. You should never call out one team and call it sufficient. Even calling one ground team out isn't sufficient, you need to have multiple teams ready to move for any type of call. If you have an aircraft called out but don't have a request for a ground team you should still have ground teams ready and waiting, and you should be stressing the fact that you have ground teams ready and able and that they are a great asset.

Most ground teams are cadet manned, depending upon the call out time they may not be available in a timely manner.   We've already established that in most wilderness type responses, the local/county/state/federal public safety agencies are responding on the ground, NOT CAP ground teams, although it is possible that a UDF might have to go with a public safety ground team.

Also in my state, the state police has a helicopter fleet with spot lights & FLIR capabilities, (weather permitting) I would think for a night time response around an airport, we would utilize that capability in conjunction with our UDF teams.    The fantasy of CAP GT's doing the rescuing, is just that, we should have qualified medical & fire/rescue folks with us or in very close proximity to respond IF we find a crashed aircraft.  I wouldn't want to be the IC (or the PIO) answering questions as to why the call to public safety wasn't made, especially in a near the airport type ELT.   
RM   

Almost all of the GTs I work with are either mostly or entirely senior.

[RiverAux]

Oh so I guess I was just dreaming in 2001 (I have been gone and out of CAP between 2003 and 2010) when our geound team was called out for a missing person and found them. And then I was dreaming three other times as well. Hmmm that explains a lot.

The frame of my response is based upon a potential aircraft crash incident.  We likely lack the appropriate equipment to perform a rescue. 

Correction -- we lack the equipment to perform SOME rescues.  Seems to me that most missing aircraft missions are resolved either by finding the plane with everyone deceased or finding them with minor injuries or less.  The in-between situations where they either have to be extricated from the plane or have to be medevaced out on a stretcher are by far the exception.  In other words CAP ground teams are fully capable for handling most situations involving missing airplanes.  And if they get to the scene and it is beyond their capabilities, no big deal, call in someone else to help.  Ideally, you will have been proactive and if there is time arrange for some local medical/fire folks to go with you to the scene, but that is not always practical and I'm certainly not going to wait around for long for them to show up. 

[manfredvonrichthofen]

If CAP finds the aircraft and it is beyond their capability then their job is almost done. They then have to cordon off the area and watch it until they are relieved while letting in those who are able to help those that we aren't able to help. But there is something that CAP can do to help in every situation, and every phase of the operation.

[arajca]

One more point - jurisdictional boundaries. Most local agencies have boundaries for their response. Some are VERY protective of their boundaries and some will not cross into another agency's jurisdiction without a direct order from the president. I've dealt with both types while on a haz-mat team.

CAP generally does not have boundaries within a state, so our ground teams can search multiple jurisdictions to local the target then report the location to the IC who calls in the appropriate local agency.

[SAR-EMT1]

UDF teams are intended for a singular purpose - searching for aircraft at airports.

Period.

No missing persons, no SAR on grass, no DR.

If they arrive at the airport and the DF points at the woods behind them, they are done.

Really ?!
Because according to several Wing IC's I have talked to, the consensus was that a UDF team could do whatever needed to be done as long as it didn't require the team to [paraphrasing] ford a river or RON.

Case in point was the mission for the Air Evac bird that went missing in Southern IL 2010. One aircrew and one UDF team sent. Both IIRC from the Metropolis/ Marion area.

[Eclipse]

Leaders do things that are bad ideas all the time, that doesn't validate the idea.

Look at the SQTR - the lane defined is specific and narrow.

[Spaceman3750]

UDF teams are intended for a singular purpose - searching for aircraft at airports.

Period.

No missing persons, no SAR on grass, no DR.

If they arrive at the airport and the DF points at the woods behind them, they are done.

Really ?!
Because according to several Wing IC's I have talked to, the consensus was that a UDF team could do whatever needed to be done as long as it didn't require the team to [paraphrasing] ford a river or RON.

Case in point was the mission for the Air Evac bird that went missing in Southern IL 2010. One aircrew and one UDF team sent. Both IIRC from the Metropolis/ Marion area.

Since UDF teams are not trained or equipped to:

Conduct a line search
Recognize search clues
Use first aid
Recognize and mitigate hazards associated with wilderness
Navigate wilderness
Etc.

How can you effectively use them as a ground team?

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

All that I'm saying is that there is a lot that GTs can do, with the right training and visibility and participation (all of which depends solely on the members) a ground team is for a lot more than retention. If you loose cadets because they don't get called out then it was explained wrong.

How long do we expect any member (senior or cadet) to go thru the time, effort and $$ of qualifying and staying current as a GTM if they will never actually be used?

[Eclipse]

All that I'm saying is that there is a lot that GTs can do, with the right training and visibility and participation (all of which depends solely on the members) a ground team is for a lot more than retention. If you loose cadets because they don't get called out then it was explained wrong.

How long do we expect any member (senior or cadet) to go thru the time, effort and $$ of qualifying and staying current as a GTM if they will never actually be used?

The same amount of time we expect our aircrews and base staff - until they are needed.

If they aren't being used, a lot of people, from Unit CC to Wing CC and everyone in between are not doing their jobs.

[Eclipse]

And while we're engaging the discussion, what "effort and $$$"?

$50 worth of gear - most of which members already own, and 1 one sortie every three years is hardly an onerous requirement.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

All that I'm saying is that there is a lot that GTs can do, with the right training and visibility and participation (all of which depends solely on the members) a ground team is for a lot more than retention. If you loose cadets because they don't get called out then it was explained wrong.

How long do we expect any member (senior or cadet) to go thru the time, effort and $$ of qualifying and staying current as a GTM if they will never actually be used?

That is something that should be taken care of by the group/wing/unit CCs and ESOs. Get your units. Isible and they the word out. That is my opinion, if I am wrong, tell me how it should be done. But if you don't get the word out then there will be no call out and you are failing the ones who are there mainly for ES and those who spend the money to help ES.


I know I have spent quite a bit more than $50... I am sure I have spent more than $200. And I love my gear, it is set up perfect for me.

[Eclipse]

I know I have spent quite a bit more than $50... I am sure I have spent more than $200. And I love my gear, it is set up perfect for me.

Absolutely, so have I, but it's just the nonsense about how much it costs to be on a GTM should end.

Just as a pilot can fly with a borrowed sectional and a notepad, or he can invest in an iPad and a kneeboard, etc.

Most of the GT gear will fit in a small backpack and you can throw a sandwich in for lunch, vs. $300 worth of Molle and MRE's.  People who want to be
in the game make things happen instead of making excuses.

[RADIOMAN015]

I know I have spent quite a bit more than $50... I am sure I have spent more than $200. And I love my gear, it is set up perfect for me.

Absolutely, so have I, but it's just the nonsense about how much it costs to be on a GTM should end.

Just as a pilot can fly with a borrowed sectional and a notepad, or he can invest in an iPad and a kneeboard, etc.

Most of the GT gear will fit in a small backpack and you can throw a sandwich in for lunch, vs. $300 worth of Molle and MRE's.  People who want to be
in the game make things happen instead of making excuses.

Hmm, are we talking about ground team operations in the winter time in the wings that get snow, cold rain, freezing rain, sleet   I highly doubt that $50.00 worth of personnel clothing/equipment is going to get any GT deployed safely in the winter.  Pure fantasy again
RM

[Eclipse]

Hmm, are we talking about ground team operations in the winter time in the wings that get snow, cold rain, freezing rain, sleet   I highly doubt that $50.00 worth of personnel clothing/equipment is going to get any GT deployed safely in the winter. 

Yes.

When it's cold, I wear a jacket, and thermals.  Both of which anyone who lives in climes you indicate will already own.
GTM ops do not equal survival experiences in marginal conditions, but you knew that.

[RADIOMAN015]

Hmm, are we talking about ground team operations in the winter time in the wings that get snow, cold rain, freezing rain, sleet   I highly doubt that $50.00 worth of personnel clothing/equipment is going to get any GT deployed safely in the winter. 

Yes.

When it's cold, I wear a jacket, and thermals.  Both of which anyone who lives in climes you indicate will already own.
GTM ops do not equal survival experiences in marginal conditions, but you knew that.

You'd be surprised how many don't and IF you throw in having the proper cold weather outwear (jacket & boots) for wearing the BDU's -- well it could get even worse, unless of course the IC authorizes a relaxed uniform response policy.

I agree with you that we have ABSOLUTELY no capability to respond during marginal conditions.   Those vans are almost useless in heavy snow on road conditions.  Best bet is to call 911 and at least in my state get the Environmental Police on snow mobiles so they can save some lives.   Probably a few of us UDF guys with golf shirts on and wearing some good ski pants and civilian boots can also help out    
RM

[Eclipse]

I agree with you that we have ABSOLUTELY no capability to respond during marginal conditions. 

No, you don't, because that's not what I said.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Here, in Indiana, we can operate in horrible conditions. Rain, snow, you name it... Of course except globally sized hail and larger, oh and during a tornado on the ground. But we train in the winter, we usually have a training event setup that we try to hit the really cold part of winter just so that we can get the idea of how we need to operate in the cold, and yes we use common sense so that. O one gets hurt, our guys are vey smart about it. But yes, we can operate in the snow and rain. We train for it because we know that more likely than not we will be operating in bad weather. Rarely does a natural disaster occur when the sun is shinning and rarely does a person get lost or go missing in wonderful weather, unless it is a law enforcement mission or someone just doesn't know what they are doing in the woods... But most often things go wrong in bad weather.

[RADIOMAN015]

Here, in Indiana, we can operate in horrible conditions. Rain, snow, you name it... Of course except globally sized hail and larger, oh and during a tornado on the ground. But we train in the winter, we usually have a training event setup that we try to hit the really cold part of winter just so that we can get the idea of how we need to operate in the cold, and yes we use common sense so that.

Rarely does a natural disaster occur when the sun is shinning and rarely does a person get lost or go missing in wonderful weather, unless it is a law enforcement mission or someone just doesn't know what they are doing in the woods... But most often things go wrong in bad weather.

If I remember correctly your state is pretty flat terrain with not much in the way of hills or mountains (my experience with your state is staying overnight in Angola & Elkhart while driving on interstate route 80/90 enroute to new military assignments) 
Unless you are putting chains on your CAP vans (which I don't think we allowed to do) or have access to four wheel drive SUV type vehicles (which CAP is now purchasing on a limited basis), a response during a storm is going to be very difficult.

Also my squadron's former expert with 25+ years of outdoor adventure (left the program partially because of the inexperienced personnel that were involved in ground team training operations, that had NO real bad weather winter woodlands hiking experience), told me that wear of CAP's BDU's during sleet, freezing rain or snow, and low temperatures would likely result in injury to personnel, I think he called it hypothermia.  

Maybe if CAP partnered with another group with snowmobiles, ATV's, Four Wheeler Jeep/Truck clubs etc, (or even public safety agencies that have this equipment) that would assist greatly in winter time snow storm responses with a quick in and out capability.  The days of walking through the deep snow are gone, ineffective & inefficient response.   As you know CAP can't own/operate ATV's or snowmobiles -- IF we are serious about winter responses, I would think we should be able to own/operate this equipment.

Now personally, I'll be back at mission base nice and warm & cozy with my long sleeve polo shirt on
RM




   

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Embarrass is pretty flat compared to the rest of Indiana, no not mountains, but plenty of hills. And if you keep up with your tires you should be pretty good, I have never had to use snow chains here.

[Eclipse]

...have access to four wheel drive SUV type vehicles (which CAP is now purchasing on a limited basis), a response during a storm is going to be very difficult.

Right, because no one in CAP, and very few members of the general public, own 4WD and AWD vehicles these days. 

Oh wait, I forgot, reverse that...

[RADIOMAN015]

...have access to four wheel drive SUV type vehicles (which CAP is now purchasing on a limited basis), a response during a storm is going to be very difficult.

Right, because no one in CAP, and very few members of the general public, own 4WD and AWD vehicles these days. 

Oh wait, I forgot, reverse that...

Members are under no obligation to use their personal vehicles to respond with a ground team to any Missions for America.

IF CAP is serious about ground team response capabilities, they will ensure appropriate 4WD response vehicles are purchased and distributed properly to wing that will need that capability. Oh, I forgot, if it's icy and snowy and the poor CAP driver driving a CAP vehicle (even a 4WD) has an accident responding to a potential aircraft crash/lost person etc, then of course it was the driver's fault because under ORM we shouldn't have been out driving.  Oh but of course if it's the member's personal vehicle, no worries CAP isn't responsible for that damage.
Yep, CAP sure knows how to take care of their members.
RM   

[Eclipse]

...have access to four wheel drive SUV type vehicles (which CAP is now purchasing on a limited basis), a response during a storm is going to be very difficult.

Right, because no one in CAP, and very few members of the general public, own 4WD and AWD vehicles these days. 

Oh wait, I forgot, reverse that...

Members are under no obligation to use their personal vehicles to respond with a ground team to any Missions for America.

Nope, they aren't, but most prefer to use them, and many have them outfitted specifically for that purpose.  Further to that,
for the most part, POV's are an acknowledged part of the response plan for members - even if you want to use a COV, you still have to
get to it, right?

Or perhaps you've missed that a huge part of CAP's value is bringing benevolent citizens to volunteer their time, skills, and treasure towards
the greater good of helping their fellow man?  ANd the best part is that it is 100% voluntary.  Which means everyone who shows up,
wants to be there.  Busy that weekend?  No problem, help us next time?  Church services in the morning?  Can you swing by after?
No?  No biggie, but don't forget us when things loosen up...

So why don't you just stop grasping for every lame, "I won't, you can't, you can't make me" excuse for why people won't respond?

It apparently will surprise you, but in a lot of other wings, people like to help, enjoy contributing their personal funds towards the
greater good of CAP service, aren't at risk of being fired on the whim of some imaginary company that doesn't like their employees
to be good citizens, and aren't so risk averse as to be unable to leave the house.

They are actually personally informed regarding the risk / reward curve of being in CAP, and still show up when called.

At least in my wing.

[RADIOMAN015]

...have access to four wheel drive SUV type vehicles (which CAP is now purchasing on a limited basis), a response during a storm is going to be very difficult.

Right, because no one in CAP, and very few members of the general public, own 4WD and AWD vehicles these days. 

Oh wait, I forgot, reverse that...

Members are under no obligation to use their personal vehicles to respond with a ground team to any Missions for America.

Nope, they aren't, but most prefer to use them, and many have them outfitted specifically for that purpose.  Further to that,
for the most part, POV's are an acknowledged part of the repose plan for members - even if you want to use a COV, you still have to
get to it, right?

So why don't you just stop grasping for every lame, "I won't, you can't, you can't make me" excuse for why people won't respond?

Well maybe we need to reduce the numbers of planes we are purchasing and allocate that money to buy more four wheel drive ground team response vehicles for appropriate allocation to the wings???.

Again the original post was about CAP's new missions.   I don't see CAP members buying their own aircraft so they can go on aerial search/photo recon missions, why should we expect CAP members to buy and or use their personal 4WD vehicles for ground missions when conditions prevent the CAP vans from being utilized    Looks to me like the entire ground ops gets the short end of the stick from a national strategy standpoint.  It isn't a priority with them.   Yes there are dedicated members that are making these responses work in spite of the lack of support at the national level and they should be saluted for their efforts :clap:
RM   

[cap235629]

Arkansas Wing has 3 4X4 vehicles placed where they are accessible to the active ground teams.  Arkansas has more dirt and gravel roads than paved roads.  You get a little rain, never mind ice and snow and they are very hazardous and difficult to traverse.  I have personally been on more actual missing person searches since being in this wing than I have been on missing aircraft searches by a factor of 3 to 1. YMMV.

[Spaceman3750]

...have access to four wheel drive SUV type vehicles (which CAP is now purchasing on a limited basis), a response during a storm is going to be very difficult.

Right, because no one in CAP, and very few members of the general public, own 4WD and AWD vehicles these days. 

Oh wait, I forgot, reverse that...

Members are under no obligation to use their personal vehicles to respond with a ground team to any Missions for America.

Nope, they aren't, but most prefer to use them, and many have them outfitted specifically for that purpose.  Further to that,
for the most part, POV's are an acknowledged part of the repose plan for members - even if you want to use a COV, you still have to
get to it, right?

So why don't you just stop grasping for every lame, "I won't, you can't, you can't make me" excuse for why people won't respond?

Well maybe we need to reduce the numbers of planes we are purchasing and allocate that money to buy more four wheel drive ground team response vehicles for appropriate allocation to the wings???.

Again the original post was about CAP's new missions.   I don't see CAP members buying their own aircraft so they can go on aerial search/photo recon missions, why should we expect CAP members to buy and or use their personal 4WD vehicles for ground missions when conditions prevent the CAP vans from being utilized    Looks to me like the entire ground ops gets the short end of the stick from a national strategy standpoint.  It isn't a priority with them.   Yes there are dedicated members that are making these responses work in spite of the lack of support at the national level and they should be saluted for their efforts :clap:
RM

Nobody's -expecting- them to, but when one of my GTM3's rolls up in their 'burban, I'm not about to turn them down.

[SarDragon]

Well maybe we need to reduce the numbers of planes we are purchasing and allocate that money to buy more four wheel drive ground team response vehicles for appropriate allocation to the wings???.

Again the original post was about CAP's new missions.   I don't see CAP members buying their own aircraft so they can go on aerial search/photo recon missions, why should we expect CAP members to buy and or use their personal 4WD vehicles for ground missions when conditions prevent the CAP vans from being utilized    Looks to me like the entire ground ops gets the short end of the stick from a national strategy standpoint.  It isn't a priority with them.   Yes there are dedicated members that are making these responses work in spite of the lack of support at the national level and they should be saluted for their efforts :clap:
RM

We have enough trouble getting recommended utilization of our aircraft assets, and you want to get vehicles that will likely sit unused an even higher percentage of the time than airplanes? Doesn't make sense to me at all.

At least we can fly the planes for proficiency flying, O-flights, CD, etc., to get the usage. Cars/trucks do not have the same requirements in terms of currency, hours, etc. There are probably fewer opportunities for use from vehicles than planes.

[ol'fido]

...have access to four wheel drive SUV type vehicles (which CAP is now purchasing on a limited basis), a response during a storm is going to be very difficult.

Right, because no one in CAP, and very few members of the general public, own 4WD and AWD vehicles these days. 

Oh wait, I forgot, reverse that...

Members are under no obligation to use their personal vehicles to respond with a ground team to any Missions for America.

Nope, they aren't, but most prefer to use them, and many have them outfitted specifically for that purpose.  Further to that,
for the most part, POV's are an acknowledged part of the repose plan for members - even if you want to use a COV, you still have to
get to it, right?

So why don't you just stop grasping for every lame, "I won't, you can't, you can't make me" excuse for why people won't respond?

Well maybe we need to reduce the numbers of planes we are purchasing and allocate that money to buy more four wheel drive ground team response vehicles for appropriate allocation to the wings???.

Again the original post was about CAP's new missions.   I don't see CAP members buying their own aircraft so they can go on aerial search/photo recon missions, why should we expect CAP members to buy and or use their personal 4WD vehicles for ground missions when conditions prevent the CAP vans from being utilized    Looks to me like the entire ground ops gets the short end of the stick from a national strategy standpoint.  It isn't a priority with them.   Yes there are dedicated members that are making these responses work in spite of the lack of support at the national level and they should be saluted for their efforts :clap:
RM

What in blue blazes do you think we did before the AF bought us all those shiny white vans? Stayed at home and played with our L-pers? Thumbed a ride from a friendly farmer?

We piled in a pickup, POV van, or what are now SUVs and we went out. CAP members don't forget how to drive in local conditions just because they get behind the wheel of one of them shiny vans. I watched my group CC drive a CAP van home from WI last year in a blizzard, My butt was puckered but it was like driving in the park to him hailing from Iowa and the Dakotas.

Like Bob said, it seems like you like to find ways not to do something rather than finding a way to Improvise, adapt, or overcome.

My user name is Ol'Fido. That comes from my old squadron's motto. F.I.D.O. -FORGET IT, DRIVE ON. That's what we did. We didn't set at the house wringing our hands.

OK, vent complete.

[sardak]

How about this? cowg_sno-cat
Mike

[Woodsy]

Wait... What?!

Does CAP really have snow cats???  Is this current or something old?

[SarDragon]

Wait... What?!

Does CAP really have snow cats???  Is this current or something old?

Very olde. (Almost missed the linky - mid-'80s. Yeah, for you, olde.)

[Woodsy]

Wait... What?!

Does CAP really have snow cats???  Is this current or something old?

Very olde. (Almost missed the linky - mid-'80s. Yeah, for you, olde.)

Ahh, I missed the link myself.  Are there still any Snow Cats in service?  It surprised me, I've never heard of any.  Then again, I wouldn't have much use for them here in FLWG. 

Cheers to the mid-80's.  Some of the worlds smartest people were born around that time 

[Flying Pig]

Cool.  My Department just bought a brand spankin new snow cat.  They are pretty awesome.  Im pretty sure we got the "Scout"

http://www.pistenbullyusa.com/en.html