Undeserved domination?

[RiverAux]

Okay, we all know that CAP is dominated by pilots and most of our time and money goes towards supporting our air SAR capabilities.  I don't have a big problem with that because as people love to point out, we are the Civil AIR Patrol. 

However, is this dominance really deserved?  I was taking a look at the CAP Homeland Security Resources page's query results for nationwide resources https://ntc.cap.af.mil/ops/hls/nationalres.cfm and noticed some interesting things.

1.  I was more than a little surprised to find that we actually have more qualified ground team leaders than we do qualified mission pilots: 2327 vs 2148. 

2.  We actually have almost twice as many ground vehicles as we do aircraft (657 vans + 151 4x4) vs 466 aircraft (that number itself is about 80 less than I thought we had, but aren't stoked enough to go look on WMIRS to check it). 

So, in turns of leaders and equipment, we could actually have an incredible ground SAR capability with what we already have, but we tend to just neglect them and think of them as a sideshow.  The thing that always makes me mad about that is that it wouldn't take much of an investment in training resources to make a significant difference to our ground teams but that wouldn't affect our aircrews much at all.  For the price of 2-3 typical aircraft sorties that don't accomplish much you could put on a weekend long training exercise for multiple ground teams that would really challenge them. 

GROUND TEAM LEADERS UNITE! 

[RogueLeader]

Not to mention that you can only have 1 or 2 more people in an aircraft compared to 3+ more on a GT.

[mikeylikey]

You should not compare vehicles and Aircraft.  Out of that number of vans.....there are some that most likely have not been turned on in 2 years.  Not to mention the vehicles are acquired with AF funds......with the reasoning being they will primarily support the Cadet Program. 

I do agree......ground ops should become the primary focus of the organization.....at least until we have a new vision statement and direction from NHQ.

[O-Rex]

No one's down-playing the role of our Ground Team personnel, it's just that flying puts the "Air" in Civil Air Patrol. 

Consider the fact that pilots constitute a surprisingly small percentage of USAF total strength, yet what's the first thing that comes to mind when people think of the Air Force?

That's not my opinion, it's just the way things are. . . .

Something to think about: I've been involved in both flight and Ground Team/UDF operations.  I do love the flying, but as a GT/UDF member, I'll never forget the gratitude and kudos I've heard in-person from both "average citizens" and public-service professionals alike.  You don't get too much of that at 2000 feet.

I think there are other Air/Ground  ES Operators out there who will agree. 

Keep training, stay focued and keep the faith.  :angel:

[IceNine]

I agree to an extent.  We do spend a lot of unnecessary money on flights that to not accomplish much.  But, then you have to look at those times we get sent out on a GT Mission for an ELT and realize that without that air support we would not be able to accomplish our objective. 

I do think that the organization needs to come up with a more realistic reimbursement schedule though.  It would be nice if we could get a certain amount of monies for meals, and other essential items.  And maybe (I can't wait to hear from the pilots on this one) re-evaluate how money is spent on airops and figure out if we are effectively using the funds, or are we paying for a lot of expensive hamburgers?

[Al Sayre]

In MSWG, quite a few of our ES people wear 2 or even 3 hats depending on the circumstances.  What the numbers you see don't tellyou is how many of those pilots are also GTL/M, not to mention the number of Observers and Scanners.  There are also a lot of folks that work the mission base jobs as needed, that may be GT qualified, but whose skill sets are better suited to the mission base.  

It's our air capability that sets us apart from all the other SAR organizations, and what gets us missions.  Our GT and Aircrews work together hand in hand and know each others capabilities and weaknesses.  I'll agree that we need to get some more GT personnel and provide quality training, but our real claim to fame is the aviation capabilities we have.

I must stop here and give kudo's to our folks here in MS, both GT and Aircrew who worked so well together to get the save this past week.  Neither the GT alone nor the aircrew alone would have been likely to save the pilot, it was truly a team effort.   It's proof that training as a team really works.

(Edit:  Woohoo! 500th post...)

[RiverAux]

Hmmm, combo Ground Team Leader/Mission Pilots?  Maybe 5% or less of our combined Mission Pilot/GT population.  I don't see that as a factor. 

Let me be clear, I didn't say air ops weren't incredibly important to CAP -- we wouldn't exist as a SAR outfit without them.  However, what I am saying is that I sincerely doubt many CAP leaders understand that there are just as many people interested in doing a good, realistic ground team scenario during a SAREX as there are wanting to bore holes in the sky. 

And, I don't think that CAP leadership understands that having good ground teams will lead to more air missions as having a ground team will get us involved with more lost person searches.  If that GTL is at the mission base and tells the sheriff, "Hey, would you like one of our airplanes overhead -- its free", you've got a good chance of getting air missions.  CAP needs to expand our use in other missions and this is where its at. 

[Ned]

Okay, we all know that CAP is dominated by pilots and most of our time and money goes towards supporting our air SAR capabilities.  I don't have a big problem with that because as people love to point out, we are the Civil AIR Patrol. 

Non-concur here.

I don't have my figures handy, but I'll wager that the largest single expenditure of volunteer time and effort is not search-related flying or ground teams, but rather the cadet program.

(Yes, I know there is certainly some overlap with cadets perfoming ES and serving as Mission Pilots)

Remember, once you back out the various patron members, AE members, etc, from the senior membership numbers and then add the CP-rated seniors and CSMs to the cadet side of the equation, we outnumber you guys.

And cadets and CP-rated seniors typically put in a lot of hours at things like week-long encampments and NCSAs that don't really have counterparts on the ES side of the equation.

Thank Goodness this is a multi-faceted organization that supports all three missions!

[sardak]

Quickly to Ned's comment.  I think the original post was referring to the domination of air within just the ES leg of the triad.  That's how I interpret it and my comments are based on that assumption.

Okay, we all know that CAP is dominated by pilots and most of our time and money goes towards supporting our air SAR capabilities.
1.  I was more than a little surprised to find that we actually have more qualified ground team leaders than we do qualified mission pilots: 2327 vs 2148.

I find it surprising that there are so many GTLs.  They seem to be a rare breed on missions.  As for the number vs. pilots - it's easier to become a GTL than an MP.

2.  We actually have almost twice as many ground vehicles as we do aircraft (657 vans + 151 4x4) vs 466 aircraft (that number itself is about 80 less than I thought we had, but aren't stoked enough to go look on WMIRS to check it).

National normally quotes a number around 540 for aircraft.  The CAPabiliities handbook lists 535 aircraft.  The same book lists 850 vans, 4x4s and pickups and 90 dedicated comm vehicles.

So, in turns of leaders and equipment, we could actually have an incredible ground SAR capability with what we already have, but we tend to just neglect them and think of them as a sideshow.  The thing that always makes me mad about that is that it wouldn't take much of an investment in training resources to make a significant difference to our ground teams but that wouldn't affect our aircrews much at all.  For the price of 2-3 typical aircraft sorties that don't accomplish much you could put on a weekend long training exercise for multiple ground teams that would really challenge them.

So why not put a plan together and submit a Form 10 asking for money for a ground team only exercise?  Or to help sell the plan, put in some money for aircraft to do a couple of sorties for air/ground coordination.  Or, given that a ground team exercise is relatively cheap, don't even bother to ask for funding, to make the point.

Ground team personnel constantly gripe about being "second class citizens" in the CAP ES world.  Guess what...we are, because as noted, "Air" is the organization's middle name and because of the nature of our parent organization.  Unfortunately, that isn't going to change, but the ground side of the team needs to assert its value, not gripe.

Some talking points:
How many ES missions involve ground resources?  A conservative estimate is 90%.

How many ES missions involve JUST ground resources? Conservative estimate is 50%.

How many ES missions involve JUST air resources?  Low, and the answer is less than 100%-(ground only missions).

What is the cost to the ES program for ground resources?  A bargain. Compare the cost to operate a vehicle to that of an aircraft and factor in the mission involvement of each.  Many ground resource personnel that utilize POVs don't submit 108s for fuel.  Partly because they don't use enough fuel to bother, and partly because it's a hassle.  CAP is far more interested in keeping members from putting a few extra dollars of gas in their vehicles, because they left home with a partial tank, than clamping down on all the non-mission flying done on missions.

Coming up with supporting data is difficult because of how mission statistics are collected.  The CAPF 122 which ICs submit at the end of every mission has these questions (the current version of the form is March 1982).

---Flight Data---
Number of aircraft
Number of sorties
Hours in search area
Hours enroute to search area and search base
Total flight hours
--------------------
Total personnel (aircrew and other)

No tracking of ground resources.  IMU and WMIRS don't collect ground resource utilization data, either.

Given the value of ground resources to the ES program, how many units give "ground team (member) of the year" or similar awards, compared to other awards?

Mike

[JohnKachenmeister]

I'm a pilot and a GTL.

I decided that I can't maintain BOTH GTL and MP currency.  I don't have the time, which is surprising, since I'm retired.

Since I was an enlisted Navy hospital corpsman, and an Army officer, I decided that the best use of my skills is as a GTL.  Frankly, I'm not even form 5 qualified right now.

So, I guess that makes me a second-class citizen in the CAP books, right?  I don't think so, but somebody must, since they started this thread.

Well, I'll just say this about that.

I still have wings and a flight suit, so I still impress all the young chicks.

So THERE!

Nyaaahhhh!

[ZigZag911]

My observation has been that numerous wings (at least here in NER) have a fair percentage of people with dual or triple qualifications -- aircrew, ground team, and mission manager.

In my own wing (NJ) I'd guesstimate that about 1/4 to 1/3 of our MPs are double or triple qualified....I could look it up, but it's late & I'm tired!

[IceNine]

First off, to comment on the second class citizen.  Look at it at a slightly different perspective.  What is the duty day for a GT?  Answer there isn't one as far as nationals is concerned.  How many times has a GT been "lost" or misplaced compared to an aircrew and aircraft?  It is far more likely that once someone joins a GT they are no longer Lt. So and So or whatever they are just GTM#3 on GT Alpha.  How often is it that a member of an aircrew is not known by name by the AOBD, not very often.  So as far as at missions we are very much so second class, working people. 

Primary Example:  At the last Eval we had the GT's were going to get a Satisfactory rating because the airforce did not evaluate us.  Every other sector had specific deficiencies and strength's noted in the debrief, not GT's.  So if the AF doesn't acknowledge us how can we expect change? 

The best course of action I can come up with is ignore all of those previously stated facts, become an IC and run training on my own with all parts being equal.  Just like the rest of our program we are founded on 3 parts CP,AE, ES.  ES is the same to me we have MBS, MAC's, and GT's  and all three are equally tasked and training is provided to all members.  As a matter of fact in my unit I require that all members are MSA, UDFT, and FLM before they can choose their "career" path.  That way they have exposure to all areas and can use that knowledge to assist other units.

[ZigZag911]

As an IC I can tell you frankly that as soon as an aircrew is formed they become "CAPFLIGHT Such and Such"....the mission management team might remember the pilot's name, the rest of them are as much simply parts of a whole as any GTMs.

Duty day for all mission personnel is the same, regardless of assignment, maximum 14 hours total.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I have been on LOTS of Air Force evaluated missions as a GTL, and I usually had an AF NCO tagging along taking notes on my performance and the performance of my team.  I remember one where I stopped at a local Stop-n-Rob in some little town on a Kidney Relief sortie, and as my cadets dismounted I noticed one young hero decided to beat the heat by taking off his BDU shirt in the van.  No problem, Trooper, but put your shirt on before you step away from the van. 

The NCO noted that minor incident in the final report, and was very favorably impressed with the "Leadership Climate."  My team got an overall "Excellent" rating.

"Excellence is easy to achieve when the standard is mere mediocrity."

[Hawk200]

Well, I'll just say this about that.

I still have wings and a flight suit, so I still impress all the young chicks.

So THERE!

Nyaaahhhh!

Yeah, but you know what those young chicks say? "Oh look, that old guy used to fly!"

Sorry, JK, couldn't resist. The Devil made me do it!

[Fifinella]

^^^

[JohnKachenmeister]

Well, I'll just say this about that.

I still have wings and a flight suit, so I still impress all the young chicks.

So THERE!

Nyaaahhhh!

Yeah, but you know what those young chicks say? "Oh look, that old guy used to fly!"

Sorry, JK, couldn't resist. The Devil made me do it!

Where's the Raven Haired Beauty now that I need her?

[BillB]

The black van from Maxwell took her, she's now at Homestead

[JohnKachenmeister]

The black van from Maxwell took her, she's now at Homestead

Poor girl! 

[RogueLeader]

The black van from Maxwell took her, she's now at Homestead

You beat me to it.