Undeserved domination?

[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.