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.   

[RiverAux]

I was speaking solely of ES-related activities.

Why so little GT-specific SAREXs?  Why not put in an Operations Plan?  I don't know about other places but I know our Wing ES officer has been trying for years to get a few hundred dollars to hold one and has gotten turned down every time.  Maybe it might work in other wings.  

As far as I've seen CAP only sees ground teams as worthwhile for turning off ELTs and every now and again walking in on a crashed airplane.  There seems to be no interest in using our existing GT capability to expand the services we can offer to SAR managers.  They just don't get that this would be a way to wriggle in to the local SAR scene and potentially bring in more air missions at the same time we help out the locals in another way.  

[Al Sayre]

She was a double agent for the Hack shop!  Mata Hari in the flesh!  She's been seen driving one of the vans distributing those funky name tapes.  Hey there's an idea for your comic strip...  Smilin Kack falls under the spell of the mysterious Raven Haired Beauty from the Hack Shop...

[davedove]

I was speaking solely of ES-related activities.

Why so little GT-specific SAREXs?  Why not put in an Operations Plan?  I don't know about other places but I know our Wing ES officer has been trying for years to get a few hundred dollars to hold one and has gotten turned down every time.  Maybe it might work in other wings.  

As far as I've seen CAP only sees ground teams as worthwhile for turning off ELTs and every now and again walking in on a crashed airplane.  There seems to be no interest in using our existing GT capability to expand the services we can offer to SAR managers.  They just don't get that this would be a way to wriggle in to the local SAR scene and potentially bring in more air missions at the same time we help out the locals in another way.  

I think the issue is that most see the Ground Teams as support for the air missions.  As many have said, we are the Civil "Air" Patrol.  And in some aspects, this image is accurate - the GT's go where the aircraft cannot for whatever reason (weather, terrain, etc.)

What needs to be better marketed is that CAP is an integrated air/ground team.  We have (or at least should have) better air-ground coordination than teams from two different services.

Could we be involved in other types of SAR's?  Sure, and I see nothing wrong with letting the community know that.  I do think, however, that our main focus should be on the entire CAP team.

[RiverAux]

I do think, however, that our main focus should be on the entire CAP team.

Sure, thats great, but there are two primary missions in which air and ground work together -- ELTs and missing airplane searches.  Airplane searches are very rare.  ELTs are fairly common.  While I don't discount the need to practice for those missions, that isn't enough to justify all that we ask our ground teams to be qualified in.  Since our ground teams are overqualified for what CAP normally uses them for, it doesn't hurt the team to try to get some more work for them that tests what else they can do so that when there is a need for a full-team effort, we've got even better trained and more experienced ground teams than we had before.

By the way, someone earlier made a comment that it is harder to become a mission pilot than it is a ground team leader.  Now, that may be true if you count the the flight hours you must have before becoming a mission pilot, but for most pilots they already have those hours when they join CAP.  All they have to do is to go through the CAP MP qualification process and it is much harder to go through the GTL qualifications than it is the Mission Pilot qualifications. 

If you do it right, it will probably take you 8 full days of practice and testing just to work on the individual tasks for GTL and it will also take you at least 8 missions (2 practice missions each for each GTM level and 2 for GTL).   A mission pilot can probably knock everything out in 2 days of training and then do 4 sorties (2 as scanner, 2 as mission pilot). 

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not dissing the pilots on this, but if you give me a pilot with the requisite hours and someone else that can walk and is a ground team wannabe, that pilot will become a fully qualified Mission Pilot probably a year or two faster than the GTL.  About the only exception to that might be if you get a recently discharged Army Ranger or somebody like that who doesn't need much training, just testing.  Even then they still need 2 more missions than a pilot to get qualified. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

She was a double agent for the Hack shop!  Mata Hari in the flesh!  She's been seen driving one of the vans distributing those funky name tapes.  Hey there's an idea for your comic strip...  Smilin Kack falls under the spell of the mysterious Raven Haired Beauty from the Hack Shop...

Don't be giving away the story line!

[Hartley]

Hi Guys,

  One of the reasons that Ground Teams don't get the National-level attention and support is that in the US, ground SAR is a State-level activity, and many states delegate that further down to Counties and other sub-divisions.  In some Wings, an active GT program has lots to do, while in others they would have nothing to do until they went out-of-state on "the big one".  Our air-search mission is (in general) Federally-driven, but the GT mission is definitely not.

  There is also the fact that while the aircrew requirements and air missions vary somewhat in different areas, the GT missions (and required/desired skill sets) vary by HUGE amounts - because of major differences in terrain and climate.

73 DE Hartley

[RiverAux]

One of the reasons that Ground Teams don't get the National-level attention and support is that in the US, ground SAR is a State-level activity, and many states delegate that further down to Counties and other sub-divisions.  In some Wings, an active GT program has lots to do, while in others they would have nothing to do until they went out-of-state on "the big one".  Our air-search mission is (in general) Federally-driven, but the GT mission is definitely not.

No, not really.  Conducting missing aircraft SAR is run by the states.  There is a federal nexus with the AFRCC, but if a state doesn't want to use CAP, they don't have to.  So, really it is the same situation as we have with our ground teams -- over the years we have proven ourselves in the air SAR field so much that it is rare that we aren't used even though it isn't required.  The same could happen with our ground teams. 

There is also the fact that while the aircrew requirements and air missions vary somewhat in different areas, the GT missions (and required/desired skill sets) vary by HUGE amounts - because of major differences in terrain and climate.

The terrain certainly varies considerably, but the qualification requirements are the same across the nation. 

[SJFedor]

Someone already said it, but I'll reinforce it.

Cost of GTL rating: 2 sorties for GTM3, plus prep and fam training, maybe a weekend of your life. 2 more sorties for GTL with additional training, maybe classroom time, maybe a total of 4-8 days max of your life. Required gear. (~$100-$400)

Cost of MP Rating: Private Pilot's license (minimum $4000-up, plus months of training), maybe an instrument rating and/or commercial ($6000-$12000 for both), 200 hours PIC time with at least 50 hours PIC Cross Country (varies), Form 5 checkride (cost of aircraft per hour), 2 sorties as a MP trainee (weekend of your life, classroom time), Form 91 checkride (cost of aircraft unless paid for by clinic), cool zoom bag (~$150, unless you can get one issued), cool flight bag (~$50), nice headset (~$100- up to $1000 if you can afford those nice Bose ANR's), flight proficiency (cost varies by aircraft, minimum 3 landings each 90 days, more if you want night currency)

The list does go on, but I'm pooped now.

So, in summation, that's why there's more GTLs then there are MP's.

[RogueLeader]

Unless the pilot only flies for cap, and will only fly for CAP, can you assess the full cost of training to MP.  If you wanted to, it would be ok to assess a portion of that cost to CAP, but it would have to proportional to the amount of flying between flight activities.  This is called activity based costing.

[Hartley]

Hi Riveraux,

  Well, sorta maybe - yes, when it becomes a missing aircraft search, then the States are involved, but not until - those ELT searches we do hundreds of usually have no State involvement at all.  Even on those missing-aircraft missions, few states have significant air search capability so they are often willing to "let CAP do it" (yes, some do have the capability, and severely limit CAP participation).  AF missions (like border intercepts, low level route recon, etc.) are also not State related, and when we move on the "big ones", the State folks are usually only peripherally involved (they have other things to do).
  But none of these (other than ELT search) involves GT missions.

  Same qualifications?  On paper maybe, but take a GT from Colorado and one from Florida and compare their skill sets, equipment load and "typical mission" scenarios - there's a world of difference!

73 DE Hartley

[RiverAux]

Well, sorta maybe - yes, when it becomes a missing aircraft search, then the States are involved, but not until - those ELT searches we do hundreds of usually have no State involvement at all. 

Actually they do.  You would find if you looked into it that AFRCC has an agreement with your state over how to handle air sar, including ELTs, and in that agreement you will see that the state is in charge of the mission.  Now, I'm not saying that these agreements aren't violated on a regular basis by the states, by the AFRCC, and by CAP, but they exist. 

Folks, I didn't say it was cheaper to become a GTL than a MP, I said that if you give me people that meet the basic requirements to start training in those specialties, it is much easier in terms of time and effort to get a MP qualified than a GTL. 

[sardak]

AFRCC has an agreement with your state over how to handle air sar, including ELTs, and in that agreement you will see that the state is in charge of the mission.

Those agreements also discuss how federal assistance for other types of SAR incidents are handled.  AFRCC would like each state to coordinate SAR the same, mainly by having a single point of contact through a designated state SAR coordinator, but that's not reality.

The agreement in Colorado reads "[Colorado Wing CAP] is the state agency responsible for missing aircraft missions until jurisdiction is established and for emergency locator transmitter (ELTs) searches within the State of Colorado."  AFRCC contacts the wing alerting officer directly for aircraft and ELT searches.

For federal assistance with missing person searches, AFRCC coordinates with the sheriff or Colorado SAR Board (CSRB).  For PLBs, the CSRB is the point of contact.

Mike

[RiverAux]

As I'm sure you know if you have the text of the agreement in CO, the state of CO actually has an official CAP department wtihin the Adjutant General's office.  A few states have that arrangement and  that probably affected how your agreement was written. 

[Dragoon]

Speaking as both an MP and long time GTL.

CAP is dominated by pilots for the same reason the United States Air Force is dominated by pilots.

Airplanes are our key corporate asset, and aerial work is our key capability.  Be it SAR, DR or cadet related, it's all about the planes, baby.

There are oodles of volunteer organizations that can put folks out on the ground doing stuff.  But there's almost no one that has the air fleet and trained volunteer aircrews crews that we've got. In business terms, that's our "competitive advantage."

And to keep that advantage, we have to focus on air related activities.  Airplane stuff is rather expensive, complicated and dangerous.  So naturally it takes most of our attention to keep that aerial capability trained, maintained, safe, etc.

We model our parent service - we are both all about airplanes and aerospace power.  If we were the Army Auxiliary, I'd bet we'd see a heck of a lot more emphasis on ground SAR and transport.  But since we're tied to USAF, we're tied to planes.

Could we do more?  Sure.  We could also add  a full fledged emergency medicine capability, technical rescue, scuba SAR, mountain SAR, dog Teams, etc. etc.  And who knows, maybe we will.  But at some point diversification hurts more than it helps.  As volunteers, we can only do so much if we want to truly to it well.

[RiverAux]

And this is just the sort of attitude that is holding us back.  Any money spent on CAP's ground SAR, no matter how little, is taking valuable cockpit time away from our pilots.  Give me a break.  We all know that there is a lot of air sorties at training missions that are a waste of time.  I've been a mission observer for many years and I've flown on more than a few of them. 

For the amount of money spent on 10 hours of flying time you could have an truly great ground-team focused exercise for ground teams from numerous units.  You will not convince me that such an expenditure would significantly lower the capability of our aircrews.

In many towns or counties with CAP units there aren't any other trained ground SAR personnel.  Applying a little bit of money towards this valuable asset that we have and aren't using would not significantly impact our air SAR capability.  And, as I said it is likely that having an increased ground SAR capability would actually also increase the liklihood of getting our air units involved in more searches than they have now. 

[Dragoon]

And this is just the sort of attitude that is holding us back.

"Holding us back." Is probably not the correct term.  A better term may be "keeping CAP from making the changes, that I, personally, want to make."   It's not all that clear that emphasizing ground teams is really neccessary.

Any money spent on CAP's ground SAR, no matter how little, is taking valuable cockpit time away from our pilots.  [Give me a break.  We all know that there is a lot of air sorties at training missions that are a waste of time.  I've been a mission observer for many years and I've flown on more than a few of them. 

First, it ain't just about money.

Aerial Operations involve a lot more than "yolk time."  It's tracking hours, handling large reimbursements, safety briefings, accident reports, annual checkrides....the list goes on and on.  Aerial operations are tough, and require a fair amount of corporate focus.   Plus, done incorrectly, it can kill our own members.

And yeah, time spent just flying around makes us safer.  I certainly don't want to fly with someone who hasn't logged an hour in 3 months!

Given that, it's not surprising that air stuff dominates what we do.  And why our leadership focuses on it.

And don't forget, all 3 of CAP's missions are tied in with air stuff.   Always have been.  That is CAP's core focus.

Add to that the postings by others in this thread that  USAF isn't really thrilled about paying for missing persons searches, and you see why ground stuff just isn't a very important corporate priority.

For the amount of money spent on 10 hours of flying time you could have an truly great ground-team focused exercise for ground teams from numerous units.  You will not convince me that such an expenditure would significantly lower the capability of our aircrews.

Heck, I've run kick ass training exercises for Ground Teams for nothing more than the price of the gas! It's really more a matter of having someone willing to do the work.  If you feel so strongly, it  sounds like you're a prime candidate to start running these sort of things for your wing. Go for it!

In many towns or counties with CAP units there aren't any other trained ground SAR personnel.  Applying a little bit of money towards this valuable asset that we have and aren't using would not significantly impact our air SAR capability.  And, as I said it is likely that having an increased ground SAR capability would actually also increase the liklihood of getting our air units involved in more searches than they have now. 

Yup.  And many of these areas don't have good ambulance services, or canine teams or whatever.  Sure, we could divert funds to expand our capabilities in other areas.  You want more Ground SAR - the next guy through the door will want CAP EMS, the guy after that wants us running shelters, the guy after that wants us to beef up our comms network so we can take over for a nationwide phone failure, and the guy after that will probably want us patrolling the harbor with boats!

All of these are good, worthwhile activities, but they aren't the thing that makes the Civil Air Patrol the Civil AIR Patrol.  That's reserved for flight ops.  We can do other things, but if we don't stay focused, we'll likely do a poorer job at our core competency.

When USAF conducts a SAREVAL and decides our ground teams are substandard, then and only then will you see the corporation put emphasis on making them better.

Again, I'm a ground pounding soldier by trade and a GTL for a couple of decades.  Used to run wing Ground Ops.  And I used to feel the same frustration.  But the more I see how very hard it is to run flight operations, the more I understand CAP's corporate focus. 

As our last CAP USAF Commander said, "We can do ANYTHING.  But we can't do EVERYTHING."

But on a local level, you can certainly make a difference. Go up to Wing and get involved.  Start organizing and running training exercises.  Then, when you've got something worth showing off, start hitting up the local sheriff's depts and see if you can rustle up some missions.  You don't need dollars for this - just energy and leadership. 

[RiverAux]

Heck, I've run kick ass training exercises for Ground Teams for nothing more than the price of the gas! It's really more a matter of having someone willing to do the work.  If you feel so strongly, it  sounds like you're a prime candidate to start running these sort of things for your wing.

As I said earlier in the thread, there have been numerous attempts in our Wing to do this for many years -- they never get approved and never get serious consideration. 

You know, we may be the Civil AIR Patrol, but we are also the USAF Auxiliary and USAF members are out doing ground-pounder missions in Iraq right now.  So, there is no need to be so limited in our thinking either.

And just to remind you, air search and rescue is NOT one of our purposes:

1.  Encourage and aid citizens of the United States in contributing their efforts, services, and resources in developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy.

2.  Encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare.

3.  To provide aviation education and training especially to its senior and cadet members.

4.  To encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities.

5.  To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies.

6.  To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its non-combat programs and missions.

In accordance with #2 and #5 we could eliminate our entire air fleet and devote ourselves full time to ground SAR as our primary ES activity and still be fully within the purposes, under federal law, for which we exist. 

Now, am I proposing that?  Of course not.  Just pointing out the fact that we are not required to focus solely on our air units. 

[ZigZag911]

In the interests of peace & harmony in our time, I'd suggest that we need both elements, air & ground....and thus must invest time, effort, resources (including funds) and people in each area.

Air & ground are complementary, not competitive. Generally ground supports air....but also completes the job (aircrews may make 'finds', but it's a ground team that actually carries out a 'save'!)

There are missions air carries out without ground (CD, damage assessment).

There are missions ground pursues without air -- particularly when the weather is too bad for flight.

Should we strip air of resources to fund ground? That would be ridiculous.

Should we starve ground of funds to enhance air further? That, i submit, would be short-sighted.

[Dragoon]

As I said earlier in the thread, there have been numerous attempts in our Wing to do this for many years -- they never get approved and never get serious consideration. 

While I don't know your specific situation, this sounds rather defeatist on your part.  Here's how to roll up your sleeves and make it happen.

1.  Become qualified as a GBD, if you're not.  Gives you some street cred.  Also gets you to know some of the ICs.

2.  Set up a squadron GT exercise.  No need for Wing approval.  Then invite a few other squadrons.

3.  Repeat a few times to get it down, and then

4.  Invite in one of the IC's you know to observe.

5.  When he's wowed with what you're doing, it's time to, with his support, get a Wing Mission # for the next one.

6.  Invite Wing leadership to observe.

7.  If you're good, and you're doing good stuff, it will be obvious that Wing can and should get behind it.

8. Next thing you know, you're the Wing Ground Ops guru, and you're running the program the way you want to.

Not a problem - I've seen this approach work a couple of times.

And just to remind you, air search and rescue is NOT one of our purposes:

1.  Encourage and aid citizens of the United States in contributing their efforts, services, and resources in developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy.

2.  Encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare.

3.  To provide aviation education and training especially to its senior and cadet members.

4.  To encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities.

5.  To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies.

6.  To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its non-combat programs and missions.

In accordance with #2 and #5 we could eliminate our entire air fleet and devote ourselves full time to ground SAR as our primary ES activity and still be fully within the purposes, under federal law, for which we exist. 

Now, am I proposing that?  Of course not.  Just pointing out the fact that we are not required to focus solely on our air units. 

Nope, we're not.

But we ARE required to have an aviation program.  It's required by your 1,2,3 and 6 above.  And it supports the other 2 (And, in fact, it can completely handle the other two).  If you go through the Statement of Work, it's even MORE aviation worded than your 1-6 above.  So since we have to have airplanes,  and air ops are difficult to master, they tend to  take up the majority of the corporation's time, energy, leadership focus and resources.

Your initial post questioned the "Dominance" of pilots in CAP.   The answer isn't limited to ES.

1.  We are primariliy an air service, just like USAF.  For a whole bunch of reasons.
2.  And therefore, it kind of makes sense that aviation folks rise to the top.  (But incidentally, a whole bunch of Wing CCs are obsevers, not pilots).

You know, we may be the Civil AIR Patrol, but we are also the USAF Auxiliary and USAF members are out doing ground-pounder missions in Iraq right now.  So, there is no need to be so limited in our thinking either.

The percentage of USAF involved in Ground Ops is probably a lot less than the percentage of CAP, so I think that's a bad analogy.

Also, in spite of USAF Ground Ops, USAF also is "dominated" by pilots.  Go figure.

[RiverAux]

Several of our squadrons have strong track records of running good gt training exercises using their own money, so that isn't the issue.  It is our Wing Director ES who cannot get funding for ground team training.  If he can't get the pilots in charge to kick loose of a little money, I certainly can't.  This isn't defeatist, it is just stating a fact of life. 

Once and for all, I am not proposing stripping air of anything, just that we should direct some reasonable amount of money towards ground team training.

As to who runs CAP, I don't really care whether they are a pilot or a ground team guy.  That isn't really my point.  I know quite a few CAP units that have non-pilot commanders and quite a few other non-pilots in positions of authority.  It is probably pretty rare to see a non-pilot Wing Commander, but I don't have a problem with that. 
 

[SARMedTech]

Here's a real wrench for the works: when you are only fixed wing capable, as we are, you dont have Air SAR, you have Air Search. In an organization like CAP, with no rotor wing assets, planes and pilots dont rescue, they search, locate and point out what and who needs to be rescued. A valuable asset to be sure, but as it stands, our air component isnt rescuing anyone. They are assisting the ground teams by locating what or who needs to be "rescued" or "found" and then moving along. Unless there are some CAP Parajumper Officers out there in an elite ultra secret unit I havent heard about. So its not ALL about the planes, baby.

Also, if the argument is that we are the AIR patrol because we are tied to the AIR Force, that doesnt really track either. The AF has pararescue jumpers, helos, EMS assets, weapons and on and on and on....Its a logical falacy that because we are tied to the AF we are tied to planes. Doesnt wash no matter how much some died in the wool pilots want it to. I have nothing against pilots and its true that without them CAP would exist, if for no other reason but our historical development. But our planes dont go in and get people from plane crashes. Our planes dont go out and shut off ELTs. People in boot leather do. Its time that CAP recognized and diversified based on some simple facts. If we are modeling the AF, then we ought to truly model them and not limit ourselves. As it stands right now, we are not modeling the AF, we are modeling PART of the AF.

[Dragoon]

Several of our squadrons have strong track records of running good gt training exercises using their own money, so that isn't the issue.  It is our Wing Director ES who cannot get funding for ground team training.  If he can't get the pilots in charge to kick loose of a little money, I certainly can't.  This isn't defeatist, it is just stating a fact of life. 

Just because he can't doesn't mean you can't.

Has he proven to the Wing Commander that this additional training actually adds any value to the Wing?  Perhaps he's not a very good salesman - and perhaps you would be.

You have to show that this expenditure would actually help the Wing.  You have to make the connections between higher quality training and some operational end that matters to the Wing CC.  Not just "if you give us money, someday we'll get more missions."  That's just speculation.

You'd be much better off training up a unit or two, then doing a demo.  Work it with both Wing Staff AND some local sheriff type who might be interested in using CAP.  If he bites and you get some calls, then you can say "You see?  And we could do this statewide with just a little funding."

The "pilots in charge" are answering to a couple of bosses, including a Region Commander and some state government folks.  If none of those bosses are clamoring for increased GT capabilities, then it makes sense that it isn't high on the list of priorities.

If you think it should be higher on the list, you need to sell it.

As to who runs CAP, I don't really care whether they are a pilot or a ground team guy.  That isn't really my point.  I know quite a few CAP units that have non-pilot commanders and quite a few other non-pilots in positions of authority.  It is probably pretty rare to see a non-pilot Wing Commander, but I don't have a problem with that. 
 

I've met a fair number of non-pilot Wing Commanders.  At least 1/4, probably closer to a 1/3.

[Dragoon]

Here's a real wrench for the works: when you are only fixed wing capable, as we are, you dont have Air SAR, you have Air Search. In an organization like CAP, with no rotor wing assets, planes and pilots dont rescue, they search, locate and point out what and who needs to be rescued. A valuable asset to be sure, but as it stands, our air component isnt rescuing anyone.

Point taken, but not really relevant to the current discussion, which is about the primacy of aviation in CAP priorities.  Even if it's just fixed wing, it is still the capability that we bring to the table.  Even if planes don't rescue, or fight fires, or deliver babies, or whatever, they are still the capability we bring to the table..  Regardless of what you might like it to be, in CAP it IS all about the planes, baby.

Also, if the argument is that we are the AIR patrol because we are tied to the AIR Force, that doesnt really track either. The AF has pararescue jumpers, helos, EMS assets, weapons and on and on and on....Its a logical falacy that because we are tied to the AF we are tied to planes.

It ain't an argument- more of an observation.  USAF is primarily concerned with airplanes (and spacecraft, but for now we'll lump 'em together).  Those other ground based things you mention are extremely small, percentage wise.  In fact, I'd wager that a larger percentage of USAF personnel are tied up in aerospace and aerospace-related activities than in CAP!

We aren't limited to aviation because USAF makes us.  It's just the way it plays out.  It's their primary focus, they oversee us, therefore it becomes the focus of their oversight, and therefore it becomes OUR focus.

It will only change if either

1.  USAF determines that our ground assets are incapable of performing the missions USAF provides to CAP.  And so far, that ain't happening.

2.  CAP gets another sponser who provides lots of bucks but wants us to have a larger non-aviation operational force.  Money talks.  So far, this hasn't happened either.


USAF is happy with the "domination" of CAP by aviation because they too are "dominated" by aviation.  And they pay the bills.

[Al Sayre]

If you include ELT hunts in Ground category (although we do sometmes use air assets), then I'm pretty sure the USAF is fairly happy with us.  In my wing, we've run 6 or 7 in the last month, with an average turn off time of about 3 hours from notification and an average cost/mission of under $30.00.   I just finished up the paperwork from our "Save"  a couple of weeks ago, and the whole mission was less than $2000.00 

If that doesn't make them smile when considering the alternatives, I don't know what will...

[Eclipse]

If you include ELT hunts in Ground category (although we do sometmes use air assets), then I'm pretty sure the USAF is fairly happy with us.  In my wing, we've run 6 or 7 in the last month, with an average turn off time of about 3 hours from notification and an average cost/mission of under $30.00.   I just finished up the paperwork from our "Save"  a couple of weeks ago, and the whole mission was less than $2000.00 

If that doesn't make them smile when considering the alternatives, I don't know what will...

And this, ladies and gentlebugs, is the real reason we are still around...

[SARMedTech]

It still seems to me that if you lined up everything we do, there is more done on the ground than in the air. It really doesnt matter to me that that may well be that case, but the "primacy" of our aero missions is mostly the holding of the "if I cant fly, I dont wanna play" crowd, unless you wanna convince someone that everytime we go out to turn off an ELT, a plane should be flying overhead.  Nah. Just doesnt wash. You can call a penny a quarter but its still a penny.

[SARPilotNY]

I am sure if we looked at all the stats around the Nation, the following would hold true most of the time:
Most ELTs are located by ground resources at night, day and in bad weather.
Most missing aircraft are found by ground resources at night, bad weather and even half of the time during the day.
Almost all the training dollars go to support air activities.

Even when an aircraft isolates an ELT to an airport, the frequently asked for a UDF team to turn it off.

CAP & the USAF gets more bang for the buck with UDF & GTs, but as the name implies....

BTW, I still want somebody to explain that "AIR" Search and Rescue?

[SARMedTech]

I am sure if we looked at all the stats around the Nation, the following would hold true most of the time:
Most ELTs are located by ground resources at night, day and in bad weather.
Most missing aircraft are found by ground resources at night, bad weather and even half of the time during the day.
Almost all the training dollars go to support air activities.

Even when an aircraft isolates an ELT to an airport, the frequently asked for a UDF team to turn it off.

CAP & the USAF gets more bang for the buck with UDF & GTs, but as the name implies....

BTW, I still want somebody to explain that "AIR" Search and Rescue?

I agree...air search makes sense but as I said since we only fixed wing a/c our pilots can really affect a rescue, but they are still a valuable part of any search operation, they just dont do the rescue part, thats all.

[ZigZag911]

I may be missing something here; when we plan SAREXes, more often than not we are working on air/ground coordination, damage assessment, and similar procedures that generally involve both elements.

In budgetting for these operations, we normally include a sum of money to fund operating GT vehicles (ordinarily CAP vans).

Certainly more funds go into air ops, because air ops are inherently more expensive.

And, as an IC and experienced UDF hand, I can tell you that while we can work an ELT with ground resources only, it is exponentially simpler when we can launch an aircrew to find that target.

[SARMedTech]

All I am saying is that our fix wing capability allows for air searches, but not air SARs, since fixed wing aircraft (at least those that we have) cannot actually perform a rescue, ie removing someone from a crash sight. Thats all Im saying, not that they planes and those who fly them are insignificant.

[Dragoon]

One other point to remember on the topic of "all the money goes to the planes."

Most Wings don't spend their own money on SAR training.  They spend Air Force money.  This is because most Wings don't have enough State money or Dues money to pay for much beyond the Wing HQ building.

So....why not spend Air Force money on Ground SAR.

We can, and we do.

But....

Take a look at what Air Force money can be spent on.

Fuel and lubricants.
Commercial Commo expenses (like long distance bills)
Aircraft Maintenance

There is an option for paying per diem (lodging and food) but if you read CAPR 173-3 you'll see how this is actively discouraged for training activities.


It's real clear from this that the focus of USAF training money is going to go to airplanes.  Fact of life.

So if you want to do some high speed ground training, and you want Wing to pony up for things like moulage kits, campground rental, rapelling gear.....  You've got a problem.   USAF isn't going to pay for any of that stuff.

It may not be a "pilot centric" Wing Commander who's getting in the way of your training funds - it may just be that there ARE no training funds to be spent for Ground Stuff outside of gas for the vans.

[wingnut]

If anybody cares

The USAF is going back to the AIR Commando program, they will have over 20,000 combat ground troops.

Sooooo how about a CAP ranger program in every state

[ZigZag911]

If anybody cares

The USAF is going back to the AIR Commando program, they will have over 20,000 combat ground troops.

Sooooo how about a CAP ranger program in every state

Where is there a connection here? 

CAP does not field combat forces!

[RiverAux]

I think he was referencing the fact that even though the AF, like CAP, is primarily an air-focused organization that it still has some important duties on the ground. 

I'm not sure those numbers would be right as that would be a very significant percentage of the AF though.

[Dragoon]

My guess is that if USAF did become more ground focused, that culture would leak over to us as well. But unless that happens, it's still gonna be about zipper suited sun gods...  :-)

I'm also not sure about those figures. The term "Air Commando" seems to include all the special ops aircrews.  I couldn't find an article about adding "2000 ground combat troops."  The vast majority of ground based Air Commands seem to be forward air controller types.  In other words, they may be on the ground, but they are still primarily aviation support assets.

It would be neat to see what an Army-based "CAP" would consist of.  I can imagine an ES capability based around Ground Search and truck transport.  Imagine units of volunteers with HMMWVS or other 4WD transports that they use in support of everything from DR to NG support.

[SARMedTech]

My guess is that if USAF did become more ground focused, that culture would leak over to us as well. But unless that happens, it's still gonna be about zipper suited sun gods...  :-)

I'm also not sure about those figures. The term "Air Commando" seems to include all the special ops aircrews.  I couldn't find an article about adding "2000 ground combat troops."  The vast majority of ground based Air Commands seem to be forward air controller types.  In other words, they may be on the ground, but they are still primarily aviation support assets.

It would be neat to see what an Army-based "CAP" would consist of.  I can imagine an ES capability based around Ground Search and truck transport.  Imagine units of volunteers with HMMWVS or other 4WD transports that they use in support of everything from DR to NG support.

I have always thought we should have hum-v's, but do you think they will give them to us as gifts on the day hell freezes over or just use the day hell freezes over as a phase in start date. And for the record, I am for having every ground team vehicle having an M-1 carbine or two in it. Anyone ever had shots zing around you as your trudge through a farm field?  Not like we would shoot back...Im just saying.

[SarDragon]

Hum-vees are maintenance hogs, just like the 6x6s before them. That's why we can't have them as corp vehicles. A unit in Maine that had a plane and a 6x6 actually spent more maintenance money per year on the truck.

[Dragoon]

Anyone ever had shots zing around you as your trudge through a farm field? 

Nope.  Not in 30 years.

As a matter of fact, I'm not aware of a single incident in the last 30 years of CAP where someone has been injured by hostile gunfire.  Or even engaged.

Sure I've hear the "friend of a friend of a friend" third hand stories, but never ever a peep out of National, Region or Wing.

If folks shot at us, somebody would have gotten hit.  The whole country can't be entirely comprised of poor marksman - this is the land of the NRA after all...

[aveighter]

Take a deep cleansing breath there Admiral Seng, exhale slowly.  Seems like you are in the grips of some serious angst too.  However, I have been to Oklahoma so I understand your pain.

[RogueLeader]

Take a deep cleansing breath there Admiral Seng, exhale slowly.  Seems like you are in the grips of some serious angst too.  However, I have been to Oklahoma so I understand your pain.

[aveighter]

  Never mind Admiral.  Just having a little fun with the pilot envy and overall ludicrous nature of the discussion.  M-1 armed CAPers trudging about whilst shots zing through the fields and all that. 

Better than popping in a little Harry Potter for taking your mind off the problems and challenges those of us with an actual life have to confront.


When is the next chapter of fantasycap due out?

[MIKE]

Lock.