CAP Talk

Ground rules: I don't want this to devolve into we need a CAC, or the new photo ID looks like crap. There's already several topics for that with a couple very good alternative designs. Take such conversation to those threads. This is a very narrow discussion of a related item, let's try to stick to it.

Topic:

Quotehttp://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/faq/rm.shtm (http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/faq/rm.shtm)
Q: What is the status of the credentialing initiative?

A: In Fy 2007, the NIC will facilitate the 5 existing discipline groups (EMS, SAR, Public Works, Incident Management and Fire/Hazmat), and 3 new groups (Law Enforcement, Health & Medical, and Animal Control).  Additional credentialing efforts are being supported by the NIC through technical consultation and advice to various groups.  This includes Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, Public Health, National Emergency Number Association (NENA)/Association of Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO), and the DHS Office of Grants and Training Target Capabilities List Working Groups.  Additionally, the DHS Science and Technology Directorate and the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) are working to establish a working group to extend the FIPS-201 SmartCard standard to address more than identity vetting by specifying the storage allocation of data features, data structures and essential information such as affiliations, qualifications etc. to ensure the various FIPS-201 implementations will be interoperable nationally. Finally the universal business processes for the credentialing system will be developed covering the selection of accrediting agencies, selection of persons to be credentialed, selection of level of badging persons required by discipline, and the authentication of issued cards.

This reinforces the push by FEMA to ensure individual qualifications & team typing standards are certified by an authroized (by them) agency, recorded on a smart card controlled by them, and no one gets access to missions, resources, facilities, or reimbursement w/o meeting these stadards. (links to resource typing & credentialing standards in other threads or on the FEMA site - not part of this discussion).

Question is simply what does CAP need to do vis-a-vie AF & FEMA to get this cleared up for our members in the furture, and is it worth investing further money in the current ID cards if they are going to be replaced soon by something official.

Hard to say what they mean here however I feel pretty confident is the feds are going to try to come up with a national card its going to be years before it is implemented so I don't see any big need to worry about it now. 

It's very far from new. These cards have been around for several years now. It's already the most widely used card standard out there. With FEMA money behind it & congressional pressure (remember the dems talking about getting the rest of the 9/11 commission recs into force)... I think that can do it in a couple years if they want, & I think they do. My point is if we get shut out of this at the begining it'll be near impossible to get in down the road when everyone comes to their senses. Hence, what should CAP do now to make sure we're compliant & working inside the system rather than acting like spoiled little children.

Keep in mind that they're going to have to be looking at getting this down to the level of county sherrif volunteer SAR teams and the like.  I anticipate a major paperwork shuffle across the country.  CAP is probably better off than most of the smaller groups as our stuff is in a nationwide database.  If they decided to change GTM3 to WSAR Tech 3 or whatever to get NIMS compliant, it wouldn't be that big of a deal to do. 

There is no evidence that CAP is really behind the curve on any of this NIMS stuff at the national level since 90% of it isn't actually set in stone yet.   Where I see problems is down at the state level where some states are farther ahead of some other states and will want to have CAP compliant before we, as a national organization, may have to be.  Given our very weird situation (part DoD which seems to be NIMS exempt, part corporation, but also partially beholden  to states for participation in ES missions) it might actually be hard to say where CAP fits.

I don't know if you're really grasping where NIMS, what's going on thre, or where CAP is on it, but that's not the case, and also not the conversation. We are required to fully comply with NIMS or not be involved in disaster response. Military personnel tasked with this stuff (mostly the national guard) are compliant. They also are tasked seperately in teh national response plan and bring a massive resource pool that can't be emulated. That's not nor will it ever be CAP.

Anyway, the focus of this is what do we have to do to resolve our ID card issues to come under the FEMA system & still be cool w/ AF.

What can we do?  Nothing.  We wait for FEMA to release their version of the CAC that will be mandatory for all first responders and then take the law on paper to the USAF and say "hey, we don't really have a choice in the matter anymore. We are only your auxiliary part-time, we do disaster relief full-time." The Air Force may control our credential when it comes to getting on bases, but they have no control of our Identification otherwise because we are a non-profit corporation chartered by the US Senate, not the Department of Defense. If another agency says we must be compliant, then we must be compliant. We'll just have to say ok to the FEMA issued (I don't really believe they will do this) ID card.

Dnall,

I think you are putting the cart before the horse again.....yes maybe, someday, FEMA will stop allowing non NIMS accredited assets from participating in FEDERAL DR activities (the only activities that FEMA controls)....but that is still many years away.  They still have not hashed out what the job qualifications are going to be, nor have they established who or what will be the national accreditation agency.

As for smart cards to document and record qualifitications....that will come in time I am sure....if/when FEMA ever mandates its use.

In the mean time....our CAP members need a picture ID that helps make our jobs today easier.

I think that this is going to happen sooner rather than later.  CAP can't afford to be lax about this.  CAP needs to have it's representitives working in partnership with other agencies doing this kind of work at every level.  Every community/region/state is mandated to have a disaster response plan on file with the feds.  These plans have been developed by a partnership between government agencies and private entities that are involved in disaster response.  I wonder how many of these local plans were developed with CAP at the table?  My guess is not many if any!

We are already late in getting to the table...the disaster response (which NIMS qualified folk will control from here on out) has changed since 9/11 and the hurricanes.  Our ES folk will need to be NIMS compliant and will need to have proof of their qualifications or they will be sent home.  Period. 

We need to be at the table with the other response agencies, and we need to be planning NOW for how we will prove that we are in compliance with NIMS, and how our members are qualified.

Quote from: DNall on February 06, 2007, 05:01:09 AM
I don't know if you're really grasping where NIMS, what's going on thre, or where CAP is on it, but that's not the case, and also not the conversation. We are required to fully comply with NIMS or not be involved in disaster response. Military personnel tasked with this stuff (mostly the national guard) are compliant. They also are tasked seperately in teh national response plan and bring a massive resource pool that can't be emulated. That's not nor will it ever be CAP.

Anyway, the focus of this is what do we have to do to resolve our ID card issues to come under the FEMA system & still be cool w/ AF.

I'm not sure what you are saying above is true.  To begin with, CAP, through USAF, can always play the military card to come in, and therefore skip the whole NIMS thing.

Second, when things get bad, you take what you can get.  You don't let the building burn down because the only firefighters around don't have the right ID card!  Sure, they'll go to the NIMS registered folks first, but Katrina showed us that they run through those very quickly.

Thirdly, these things take years to implement. Wheels turn slowly and they change direction often.  If we try to get ahead of the curve, we run a very real risk of spending money and time on an obsolete policy that never comes to fruition.  When the regs are firm, we should follow them.  There's ALWAYS in implementation period after new mandatory policies come out.

In the end, though, I'm that if special ID cards are required, we'll be given them.  It will probably be a second card, completely seperate from the CAP ID card.

Dragoon--
In NIMS there will not be a military card too play in the Incident Command System.  Military, especially guard units maybe activated for the emergency, however, they will be taking direction from persons who are NIMS compliant, trained and qualified...most likely to be civilians.  And the days of just showing up and volunteering to help are quickly disappearing.  The Disaster Responders have learned two things from the most recent disasters...

1.  Keep politicians out of the disaster area

2.  Keep the untrained and unqualified far, far away from the disaster area.

Both one and two can do more damage and utililize more resources that could otherwise be directed by the ICS for response and recovery.  Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

Quote from: DogCollar on February 06, 2007, 02:16:47 PM

1.  Keep politicians out of the disaster area

2.  Keep the untrained and unqualified far, far away from the disaster area.

Both one and two can do more damage and utililize more resources that could otherwise be directed by the ICS for response and recovery.  Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

No doubt about the politicians.  But then, most things are better off without them.

Untrained civilians can be used for some portions of a response.  However, they are best used for rear area functions and a system must be in place to organize them.  It is important to keep them out of the way of the professional responders.  There was a big problem with this in New York after 9-11.

Quote from: davedove on February 06, 2007, 02:36:11 PM

Quote from: DogCollar on February 06, 2007, 02:16:47 PM

1.  Keep politicians out of the disaster area

2.  Keep the untrained and unqualified far, far away from the disaster area.

Both one and two can do more damage and utililize more resources that could otherwise be directed by the ICS for response and recovery.  Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

No doubt about the politicians.  But then, most things are better off without them.

Untrained civilians can be used for some portions of a response.  However, they are best used for rear area functions and a system must be in place to organize them.  It is important to keep them out of the way of the professional responders.  There was a big problem with this in New York after 9-11.

The best thing untrained civilians can do is donate money...I'm not making light of this...money makes the recovery happen!

NIMS will have a role for military personel, but unless they are NIMS trained and compliant it will not be in the disaster area. 

Quote from: DogCollar on February 06, 2007, 02:50:13 PM
The best thing untrained civilians can do is donate money...I'm not making light of this...money makes the recovery happen!

NIMS will have a role for military personel, but unless they are NIMS trained and compliant it will not be in the disaster area. 

That's correct. There's some NG troops on here, ask them how many FEMA courses they've been required to do, and mostly on their own time at least the online ones. The AD & Res Army personnel that work directly with disasters are compliant, same for the AF side.

The deal with this is there's no money if you use unqualified people. The non-NIMS compliant (and therefore unqualified) teams cannot be reimbursed from federal funds. State/local using them cannot be reimbursed for that use, and may endanger all other reimbursement for having used them. Big hammer, therefore no chance unless you get compliant. The feds sometimes use non-compliant highly specialized federal military assets (transportation & logistics is about it, that includes C130s & helos), but it requires special permission on a case by case basis - we won't be getting that. They've been saying this for years & slowly doing the transition with ever tightening standards. Here they are telegraphing the moves they plan to make in the next 24months, and they've been very consistent about following thru on the last 5 years of telegraphed moves. I'd take them at their word.

Specific to this ID thing... from what I can tell they haven't made up their mind syet but it looks like it won't be only FEMA issuing IDs, maybe states, maybe other federal agencies. It'd be a list approved by FEMA. The key being some certified person has to swear to that agency that this individual has been trained internally & meets this list of quals, & here's their certs from external agencies on these others, now can I get them a card that says they are a WSAR-tech type III or whatever, & I accept legal liability if I'm a liar.

Now logistically, it seems like it might be appropriate for CAP to be one of those issuing agencies, considering the number of people we cover. If that's the case, then CAP needs to be getting much more involved in this process so they have standing when the time comes. OR, AF might be appropriate as the certified credentialing agency, and at that point they can verify our training & issue us smart cards that fit the standards. However it works out, AF has to approve any photo ID we get, and that means we they & FEMA needs to figure this all out. And oh by the way we need to take the qualification standards more seriously on the back of this move cause if the card is your ticket to ride & you aren't willing to do the training to earn it then you don't play. It takes time to transition & if we're too far behind it might shut us down abruptly for a year or two & that would be bad news.

DNall, you're absolutely correct.  And the federal dollars, as you say, will not be forth coming without NIMS qualifications.  I really think CAP is most likely behind the proverbial 8 Ball on this and we need to reposition and retrain to come into compliance.

First, I sincerely doubt that the military will be forced to play by these rules.  Simply put - if you want a military asset (and you almost always do), you take what they give you.  ESPECIALLY in an emergency.

In the eyes of the executuve branch, there's a big difference between "untrained volunteers" and "untrained military."  I've seen military units deployed to do everything from fight forest fires to build sandbag dams.  And they'll be called again, regardless of FEMA qualifications.

And that's CAP's "in."  Once the inevitable exception for the military becomes standard, CAP gets to play because it's the USAF Auxiliary by law (suddenly, that law becomes pretty useful).

Now, lack of compliance would effect CAP getting FEMA money if they tried to do anything without USAF cover - but that doesn't happen that often.

Our normal money to maintain our fleet doesn't come from FEMA.  And our reimbursement money comes through USAF, effectively getting USAF top cover and, dare I say it "laundering."

What we've heard is what FEMA wants to do.  Since so many other agencies are involved, we'll see what, in the end, they are allowed to do.  And what loopholes end up getting inserted to water down their intent into something more realistic.

The other side of the coin of course is.....if you need the asset....you need the asset.  FEMA needs someone to fly some DR photo recon....who are they going to call?  If CAP is not NIMS compliant, in the NG or the USAF is not NIMS compliant....do you just do with out your pictures?


This is not to say that I think we need to just blow off getting NIMS complaint....but that I think you are all making a mountain out of a mole hill.

When FEMA finallises the accrediation process and resource typing and the records managment process we (CAP) will change the way we train.  As it is now....there is not a whole lot we need to change.  We already do most of what they want use to do.  We could easilly field type III and type IV ground teams right now with support of an EMS service for the medic requirments.

Okay...we are talking about Apples and Oranges here.  You are, of course correct to say that if FEMA needs an asset, it doesn't matter if we are NIMS qualified or not.  But the point is NIMS mandates a command and response structure.  Unless you are NIMS qualified, you WILL NOT be a part of the Incident Command structure period!!  You may have all the command and leadership and know how in the world, but you won't be invited under the tent without a NIMS card. 

The people in the Incident Command structure will be assessing the needs for "assets."  If there is no one from CAP under the ICS tent, then other assets may be utilized before us.  It's just common sense that decision makers will go with who and what they are most comfortable with.  All I'm saying is that we need lots of members to be NIMS compliant...but our ES training is not yet there.

Quote from: afgeo4 on February 06, 2007, 07:21:25 AM
The Air Force may control our credential when it comes to getting on bases, but they have no control of our Identification otherwise because we are a non-profit corporation chartered by the US Senate, not the Department of Defense.

Read this (http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/10/afi10-2701/afi10-2701.pdf). Page 8. Bottom.

Quote from: Dragoon on February 06, 2007, 07:49:39 PM
First, I sincerely doubt that the military will be forced to play by these rules.  Simply put - if you want a military asset (and you almost always do), you take what they give you.  ESPECIALLY in an emergency.

Then why are there numerous military Homeland Security units that are operating under NIMS and using ICS? If military assets show up, and don't know what ICS or NIMS are, I can tell you what they'll be doing: sandbag detail.

QuoteIn the eyes of the executuve branch, there's a big difference between "untrained volunteers" and "untrained military."  I've seen military units deployed to do everything from fight forest fires to build sandbag dams.  And they'll be called again, regardless of FEMA qualifications.

Building sandbag dams isn't exactly a complex idea. For military utilized to fight extended length forest fires, all of those people I know that have done it, got at least a week of training. They got trained though.

QuoteAnd that's CAP's "in."  Once the inevitable exception for the military becomes standard, CAP gets to play because it's the USAF Auxiliary by law (suddenly, that law becomes pretty useful).

Inevitable exception? I don't know where you got that idea, but I have serious doubts that would happen. Not to mention it would be the ultimate height of hypocrisy for CAP to play the  "We're a military auxiliary" card. You can't play both sides of the fence. Tends to ruin your giblets.

QuoteOur normal money to maintain our fleet doesn't come from FEMA.  And our reimbursement money comes through USAF, effectively getting USAF top cover and, dare I say it "laundering."

"Laundering" ? Just out of curiousity, have you ever been in the military? Cause some of the ideas you've put out don't seem to relate in any way to the military I was in.

QuoteWhat we've heard is what FEMA wants to do.  Since so many other agencies are involved, we'll see what, in the end, they are allowed to do.  And what loopholes end up getting inserted to water down their intent into something more realistic.

It seems like the Presidential Directives and National Response Plan are already in place. You wanna tell the President or the Secretary of DHS what you're going to allow them to do?

Funny, I actually am learning something in those ICS courses. Who would have guessed?

Quote from: mclarty on February 07, 2007, 04:45:01 AM
Read Page 8. Bottom.

Lil cut & paste for ya"

Quote1.3.5. CAP ID Card. CAP members carry an ID card identifying them as members of the organization.
CAP ID cards must meet Air Force standards and are considered a uniform item subject to the same approval process as other parts of the CAP uniform. The CAP ID card must be sufficiently different from U.S. Armed Forces ID card that confusion will not occur. The CAP ID card will not allow access to government facilities or other agencies and is not a government identification card. CAP ID cards do not qualify for Federal Aviation Administration identification requirements concerning pilot certificate privileges. Each installation commander is responsible for determining the amount of access, if any, which will be afforded to CAP personnel.

Quote from: Hawk200 on February 07, 2007, 05:03:31 AM
It seems like the Presidential Directives and National Response Plan are already in place. You wanna tell the President or the Secretary of DHS what you're going to allow them to do?

That's the thing right there. NIMS & everything DHS is doing on this are executing an executive order backed up by congressional action on the money. As has been noted, the national guard is fully compliant. The AD & Res portions of the military that function within disater/ICS situations are compliant. It is true that if a specialized asset is needed that it'll be used regardless of compliance. That requires special permission, but here's the kicker. If you need photos & non-compliant CAP is here on the one hand that if you use them then FEMA can deny all funding to you for even the things you did right, or the National Guard is over here with a blackhawk that'll cost 5X as much and take longer cause they're busy, but it'll get paid for, well that means CAP never gets the call. And the bigger thing with that is it won't be a choice between two thing sitting on the flight line together, CAP won't be physically allowed in the airspace, even if they would like to use us.

Quote from: Hawk200 on February 07, 2007, 05:03:31 AM

QuoteOur normal money to maintain our fleet doesn't come from FEMA.  And our reimbursement money comes through USAF, effectively getting USAF top cover and, dare I say it "laundering."

"Laundering" ? Just out of curiousity, have you ever been in the military? Cause some of the ideas you've put out don't seem to relate in any way to the military I was in.

Still am in, and have played rather extensively with money.

Here's the details behind the snarky "laundering" comment.

FEMA says "no money unless all your guys are NIMS compliant."

Then a big disaster hits, and, like Katrina, the whole durned federal government gets involved.  FEMA waives the NIMS rules for DoD and starts funding their efforts.

We in turn are activated through USAF channels and submit our reimbursement requests through USAF.

So FEMA money goes through USAF to us....and the NIMS thing gets completely forgotton.


Don't get me wrong, I'm all for compliance, and working within ICS.  But if anyone truly believes that CAP will be shut out of a Katrina style incident in FY08 because we haven't type classified all our assets......yer livin' in a different world than this one.

It will take a decade to get that kind of compliance, and by then the standards will have been changed (probably watered down), exceptions granted, etc.

This is something CAP should moniter and get involved with.  But the sky ain't falling - and we could waste a lot of time and money getting in front of something that's still in it's infancy, and subject to great change in the next few years.

Quote from: Dragoon on February 07, 2007, 02:19:02 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on February 07, 2007, 05:03:31 AM

QuoteOur normal money to maintain our fleet doesn't come from FEMA.  And our reimbursement money comes through USAF, effectively getting USAF top cover and, dare I say it "laundering."

"Laundering" ? Just out of curiousity, have you ever been in the military? Cause some of the ideas you've put out don't seem to relate in any way to the military I was in.

Still am in, and have played rather extensively with money.

Here's the details behind the snarky "laundering" comment.

FEMA says "no money unless all your guys are NIMS compliant."

Then a big disaster hits, and, like Katrina, the whole durned federal government gets involved.  FEMA waives the NIMS rules for DoD and starts funding their efforts.

We in turn are activated through USAF channels and submit our reimbursement requests through USAF.

So FEMA money goes through USAF to us....and the NIMS thing gets completely forgotton.


Don't get me wrong, I'm all for compliance, and working within ICS.  But if anyone truly believes that CAP will be shut out of a Katrina style incident in FY08 because we haven't type classified all our assets......yer livin' in a different world than this one.

It will take a decade to get that kind of compliance, and by then the standards will have been changed (probably watered down), exceptions granted, etc.

This is something CAP should moniter and get involved with.  But the sky ain't falling - and we could waste a lot of time and money getting in front of something that's still in it's infancy, and subject to great change in the next few years.

Okay I get your scenerio, but it is missing a big chunck of reality.

First, everyone in DoD (guard, active, reserve, civilian) that works on disaster/ICS is already compliant now -  at least the front line people already are to meet the deadlines & now they're going back & getting everyone else.

Second, it is still possible to use non-NIMS compliant resources from DoD, when & only when there is no other alternative even when it may take longer & cost more. In order to use such a resource it requires specific case-by-case sortie-by-sortie permission, and depending on the level of the disaster that permission may have to come from the President or Governor (it's the IC appointing authority). Under such a system, you must realize there are alternatives to CAP & that we would not get such approval except in the rarest narrowest cases.

Third, even if the way you were looking at it were close to reality, CAP could still not work within any kind of special DoD exemption. We're not desperately needed with no alternative lik maybe a C130 is.

CAP WAS shut out of Katrina. Take a look back at the work we did. A few imaging flights, then the big operation was door-to-door surveys, and some remote shelter support. Man we must have saved thousands of lives. Holy crap, move over Coast Guard, CAP is here. There weren't CAP members in the depths of New Orleans pulling people out, running support comms, on the scene within a few hours beaming out the first assessment imagry so initial resources & rescue personnel could be directed. We weren't doing anything useful. We weren't doing it in conjunction with the overall IC, and even internally we were running a bunch of seperate little overlapping missions that were totally uncoordinated. It was one gigantic cluster, and we're really luck we were able to beg that much work out of anyone. The funding for that route has now been closed, so it won't happen again.

You want to do SaR, fine get qualified to do SaR just like any emergency responder. The standards don't matter if you work for a paid fire dept, a volunteer fire dept, you're part of a private volunteer rescue squad, or CAP. FEMA sets the standards, everyone else meets them or they are not allowed in the area.

It's my understanding that NIMS came into being AFTER Katrina...and that it only becomes mandatory this year.  So, no waiving of NIMS qualifications before this year.  Again, I don't think we can afford to be lax in getting our ES people compliant with NIMS.

Quote from: DNall on February 07, 2007, 06:13:55 PM
First, everyone in DoD (guard, active, reserve, civilian) that works on disaster/ICS is already compliant now -  at least the front line people already are to meet the deadlines & now they're going back & getting everyone else.

Where the heck to you get that statistic from?  I believe it's incredibly false.  Sure the folks whose job title is involves the word "disaster" have taken (or are taking) ICS courses - but that just a miniscule fraction of the military assets that will be put to work on a disaster.   Most military assets that will be used in a disaster are combat support - not disaster support - assets.  NIMS classification ain't high on their list of training priorities.

Quote from: DNall on February 07, 2007, 06:13:55 PM
Second, it is still possible to use non-NIMS compliant resources from DoD, when & only when there is no other alternative even when it may take longer & cost more. In order to use such a resource it requires specific case-by-case sortie-by-sortie permission, and depending on the level of the disaster that permission may have to come from the President or Governor (it's the IC appointing authority). Under such a system, you must realize there are alternatives to CAP & that we would not get such approval except in the rarest narrowest cases.

That may (or may not be) the rules. But that ain't the way it's ever worked, and ever is going to work.  In a crunch they're gonna call.  And no one is going to tell the IC that he can't do it - in an emergency, the red tape is the first casualty.

Quote from: DNall on February 07, 2007, 06:13:55 PM
CAP WAS shut out of Katrina. Take a look back at the work we did. A few imaging flights, then the big operation was door-to-door surveys, and some remote shelter support. Man we must have saved thousands of lives. Holy crap, move over Coast Guard, CAP is here. There weren't CAP members in the depths of New Orleans pulling people out, running support comms, on the scene within a few hours beaming out the first assessment imagry so initial resources & rescue personnel could be directed. We weren't doing anything useful. We weren't doing it in conjunction with the overall IC, and even internally we were running a bunch of seperate little overlapping missions that were totally uncoordinated. It was one gigantic cluster, and we're really luck we were able to beg that much work out of anyone. The funding for that route has now been closed, so it won't happen again.

Are you saying that CAP was "shut out" because of lack of compliance with FEMA rules.  BS!  The rules weren't even around then (heck, a lot of them are still draft!)

We did what they needed us for.  And that's what we'll do in the future.    The things we didn't do are things we aren't going to get to do just because we get FEMA compliant - we'd only do those things if we acquire new capabilities beyond those we have now.  I'm all for that - but that has nothing to do with any compliance issues.  We did what they asked us to do, and what we were capable of doing.  And that's what we'll do in the future.

I see no evidence that "the funding for that route has been closed.  That simply isn't how the real world works.  Maybe in 10 years, but not now.

Quote from: DNall on February 07, 2007, 06:13:55 PM
You want to do SaR, fine get qualified to do SaR just like any emergency responder. The standards don't matter if you work for a paid fire dept, a volunteer fire dept, you're part of a private volunteer rescue squad, or CAP. FEMA sets the standards, everyone else meets them or they are not allowed in the area.

Let me know the first time CAP is "not allowed in the area."  Until then it's all idle speculation.  The sky just ain't falling.  And it won't for a long time.


Again, compliance is good.  We should play on the same team.   And it will help if we want a bigger roll.   But the doom and gloom is just wayyyyyyy overstated.  We've still got the planes - and they still need 'em.

Somewhere in one of the Presidential directives about NIMS I saw that DoD was exempt.  I can't find the darn thing now but there was something about that there.  I didn't really dig into it so could be wrong. 

Ah... but we're not DoD and even if DoD requests our assistance, we can be denied access to incident by FEMA due to non-compliance. They could just say, "the exception applies to DoD personnel only" and they'd be right.

Quote from: afgeo4 on February 07, 2007, 10:09:36 PM
Ah... but we're not DoD and even if DoD requests our assistance, we can be denied access to incident by FEMA due to non-compliance. They could just say, "the exception applies to DoD personnel only" and they'd be right.

When we are on AF missions we are the DOD...because then we would be the USAF-AUX.

I am interested in this thread. 

Is there actual documentation that ties us as a DOD assett.

CAP is treated as a federal asset due to its relationship with the AF  in just about any emergency plan I've seen.  Our status as the AF Aux is covered in federal law. 

river,

I am very aware of that.  My question was specific to the DOD.  Being fedral does not always corolate to DOD. 

In my years I dont think that I have ever seen us references specifically as a DOD asset.

AFRCC requests our assistance through the issuance of an AFAM, but they dont pay for it, or manage us.

AFNSEP does the same. 

I would hope that we would be a DOD assett, but I cant say I have ever seen it.

John

Exactly how do you figure that an organization acting as the AF Auxiliary under the actual control of the AF would not be considered a DoD asset?

they task many assetts.  Cvilian, corporate, etc.

How are we defined differently

I think you need to re-read several chapters of CAPR 60-3 which has numerous references to CAP as a federal and as an AF (i.e., DoD) asset.  This is basic CAP ES knowledge. 

River,

I'm sorry you decided to make this a personal issue.  I assure you that I have read 60-3 many times over.  I am always interested in hearing other people's angles, and approaches.

I just went back to said document and did a search.  The acronym DOD is referenced 12 times.  In most cases the DOD reference is in terms of military support to civil authorities.  I see no reference to CAP specifically being a DOD asset.  If I missed it I would love to see it. 

Im sorry to spin this thread in different directions.  This may need to be its own topic

The creation of NIMS was directed by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD-5) issued by the President of the United States on February 28, 2003.

The NIMS was issued by the Department of Homeland Security on March 1, 2004.

The first letter requiring NIMS compliance beginning in FY2005 went to the states on September 8, 2004.

These dates all precede Katrina.

NIMS compliance has been made in steps, with each FY requiring additional compliance activities.

Compliance is not new and NIMS is not in "draft form."  It does get revised, though, just as CAPRs get revised.

The NIMS website is at:
http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/index.shtm

Mike

Just off the top of my head, look at how CAP assistance in Presidentially-declared disasters needs to be requested through the Federal Coodinating Officer. 

Just because 60-3 doesn't refer to DoD, when we're working for the AF by definition we're also working for DoD indirectly.

river,

I agree our own regulations would not be the place to define us as a DOD assett. 

If your game, I think this is an interesting discussion. 
Is there more out there on this topic??

I don't agree at all.

Since 60-3, specifically the disaster relief portions, is based on what is required to request DoD (in the guise of the AF) assistance, they seem pretty definitive to me.  If you can read that and not understand that we are, in terms of being used as the AF Aux, considered a federal asset and specifically a DoD asset under control of the AF, there isn't much more to discuss.

Quote from: isuhawkeye on February 08, 2007, 02:05:33 AMI agree our own regulations would not be the place to define us as a DOD assett. 

I would have to agree with that as well. CAP cannot define itself as a DOD asset. I can call myself the President or a fighter pilot or an Indian Chief, but it wouldn't hold any weight. An Air Force or DOD reg defining as a useable DOD asset I'd believe.

Quote from: RiverAux on February 08, 2007, 01:11:15 AM
Just off the top of my head, look at how CAP assistance in Presidentially-declared disasters needs to be requested through the Federal Coodinating Officer. 

Just because 60-3 doesn't refer to DoD, when we're working for the AF by definition we're also working for DoD indirectly.

All requests for CAP assets by Federal Agencies must go through the USAF.

When we are on an AFAM we are the USAF-AUX under their operational control....ergo we are a DoD asset and any rules that apply to the USAF (from other agencies) would by extention apply to us.

This is just my barrack lawyering.

All of this is beside the point....CAP will be NIMS complaint when it really is required of us.

When we say things are in draft form...we are talking specificly about the training requirments for the various SAR teams.  The training requirments that have been floating around this board...are only draft recommendations at this time.  They will be finailised sometime soon (I think they said by FY 08...so that would be in October).  When that happens the will be broadcasted to the various agencies out there and we (as on of those agencies) will make the necessary changes to our training or find other sources of training.

This is not rocket science guys....nor is it the end of the world.  We have plenty of time to get in the groove.  There will be a phase in period....as someone said....you can expect it will be years before anyone is not allowed to participate in a FEMA operation.

Let's not get the horse before the cart.  What CAP needs to be doing now....is someone form NHQ needs to be in on these NIMS working groups to get first hand information and to represent CAP's view points.

Quote from: Hawk200 on February 08, 2007, 03:06:43 AM

Quote from: isuhawkeye on February 08, 2007, 02:05:33 AMI agree our own regulations would not be the place to define us as a DOD assett. 

I would have to agree with that as well. CAP cannot define itself as a DOD asset. I can call myself the President or a fighter pilot or an Indian Chief, but it wouldn't hold any weight. An Air Force or DOD reg defining as a useable DOD asset I'd believe.

Already done.  The USC that creates us...says we work for the SECAF...who works for the SECDEF......If you boss is in the DoD, you are in the DoD.

USC 36 says we also work to support local authorities... doesnt it???

Quote from: isuhawkeye on February 08, 2007, 04:46:20 AM
USC 36 says we also work to support local authorities... doesnt it???

Yes....when we are not on the DoD's payroll (AFAM) then we are NOT the DoD we are just a non-profit corp doing good work.

My two cents: As long as our HQ is on an Air Force Base we are (at least part time) DoD... 

NIMS compliance is going to be required of CAP.  Even if we were somehow exempt, because we have a family tree that traces back to the DoD...we should be NIMS compliant anyway.  The only way I can see for CAP to be an "asset" to anyone in a disaster is if we are compliant with regulations, we are leaders in the ES/DR field, and no one perceives us as coming along kicking a screaming "DoD...DoD."  Thats not how you win friends or influence people.  Just my opinion.

Absolutely. We should get with the program.  But at the same time, it's dangerous to try to get in front of the program.  I remember when NASAR put the SARTECH standards out, and some members were pusing that we needed to adopt them "because the entire SAR community is" and if we didn't, we wouldn't get missions.

Had we gone that route, the average cost per member would have been rather significant, lining NASARs pockets nicely (they would not give CAP any kind of discount).  And in the end, it wasn't required.   The "SAR Community" (whatever that is) wasn't anywhere near as monolithic as the enthusiasts suggested.

And now we see draft NIMS standards stating "SARTECH or equivalent," which opens the door to just tweaking what we already have.  Much nicer.

Basically, the federal stuff is still evolving, and we need to make sure we don't squander time and resources trying to be on the cutting edge of something that's likely.  Best to keep an eye on it and adopt it in sections, starting with those that seem unlikely to change in the future. (like the ICS classes for staff folks and ICs).

Quote from: Dragoon on February 08, 2007, 01:16:54 PM
Basically, the federal stuff is still evolving, and we need to make sure we don't squander time and resources trying to be on the cutting edge of something that's likely.  Best to keep an eye on it and adopt it in sections, starting with those that seem unlikely to change in the future. (like the ICS classes for staff folks and ICs).

I would agree with that note. And ICS is rather practical, no real reason why we shouldn't adopt it. Once the other programs reach final evolution, we can consider those then.

Quote from: Hawk200 on February 08, 2007, 07:16:08 PM

Quote from: Dragoon on February 08, 2007, 01:16:54 PM
Basically, the federal stuff is still evolving, and we need to make sure we don't squander time and resources trying to be on the cutting edge of something that's likely.  Best to keep an eye on it and adopt it in sections, starting with those that seem unlikely to change in the future. (like the ICS classes for staff folks and ICs).

I would agree with that note. And ICS is rather practical, no real reason why we shouldn't adopt it. Once the other programs reach final evolution, we can consider those then.

I would humbly suggest that we begin compliance now and adjust and evolve as ICS requirements will.  I doubt seriously that there will ever be a "final" evolution.  Remember this is the Federal government we are talking about here!
I realize that some folks might be waiting for THE training course appropriate for CAP to be offered by FEMA.  I have taken IC 100, 200 and 700, and my opinion is that ICS is ICS, whether it is in disaster relief like New Orleans were multiple agencies are involved, or a hospital responding to power failure.

I only brought up the possible DoD exemption as a way to show that CAP's situation is somewhat unusual in regards to NIMS compliance.  I certainly expect, and CAP should, become fully involved in the program.

I fully agree that we shouldn't go hog-wild crazy changing our requirements until we know for sure what will be required.  However, even making allowances for that, I'd say that at the very minimum we will be required to take ICS 100 and 700 and probably 200 and 800 for just about everybody.  We should go ahead and start getting our members to take them now.  Experience in the CG Aux has shown that even with a long phase-in period it will take a lot of work to get everybody through that initial hurdle and we might as well start. 

For anything more than that we need to wait for applicable NIMS guidelines to be totally finalized. 

Quote from: DogCollar on February 08, 2007, 07:24:31 PMI would humbly suggest that we begin compliance now and adjust and evolve as ICS requirements will. 

I would agree with that. I thought I was supposed to take 200, 700, and 800, so I did. It was still very interesting, and I'm probably going to take a few of the other IS, and ICS courses that are available. I learned a lot.

I don't think it would be too bad an idea to actually start integrating these courses into our initial training of our new officers. Since it can be used in ways besides missions, it would be pretty practical.

QuoteI doubt seriously that there will ever be a "final" evolution.  Remember this is the Federal government we are talking about here!

I find this amusing, but only because its absolutely true. Besides, it's easier to learn and then add on, than it is to learn a mass of stuff from scratch.

QuoteI realize that some folks might be waiting for THE training course appropriate for CAP to be offered by FEMA.  I have taken IC 100, 200 and 700, and my opinion is that ICS is ICS, whether it is in disaster relief like New Orleans were multiple agencies are involved, or a hospital responding to power failure.

The fact that all ICS is the same is what makes it so ingenious. Doesn't matter what uniform you wear, it's all the same. You learn the common titles, and they apply to everybody. No more wondering what the cop meant, or the EMS guy is telling you. The common terminology makes for an easier interface.

Quote from: DogCollar on February 08, 2007, 07:24:31 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on February 08, 2007, 07:16:08 PM

Quote from: Dragoon on February 08, 2007, 01:16:54 PM
Basically, the federal stuff is still evolving, and we need to make sure we don't squander time and resources trying to be on the cutting edge of something that's likely.  Best to keep an eye on it and adopt it in sections, starting with those that seem unlikely to change in the future. (like the ICS classes for staff folks and ICs).

I would agree with that note. And ICS is rather practical, no real reason why we shouldn't adopt it. Once the other programs reach final evolution, we can consider those then.

I would humbly suggest that we begin compliance now and adjust and evolve as ICS requirements will.  I doubt seriously that there will ever be a "final" evolution.  Remember this is the Federal government we are talking about here!
I realize that some folks might be waiting for THE training course appropriate for CAP to be offered by FEMA.  I have taken IC 100, 200 and 700, and my opinion is that ICS is ICS, whether it is in disaster relief like New Orleans were multiple agencies are involved, or a hospital responding to power failure.

We are compiant now.  We cannot meet with requirments that have not been levied yet.

10 usc 9441:

Quote(a)  Status.—
(1) The Civil Air Patrol is a nonprofit corporation that is federally chartered under section 40301 of title 36.
(2) Except as provided in section 9442 (b)(2) of this title, the Civil Air Patrol is not an instrumentality of the Federal Government for any purpose.
(b) Purposes.— The purposes of the Civil Air Patrol are set forth in section 40302 of title 36.

10 usc 9442:

Quote(a)  Volunteer Civilian Auxiliary.— The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.
(b) Use by Air Force.—
(1) The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of the Civil Air Patrol to fulfill the noncombat programs and missions of the Department of the Air Force.
(2) The Civil Air Patrol shall be deemed to be an instrumentality of the United States with respect to any act or omission of the Civil Air Patrol, including any member of the Civil Air Patrol, in carrying out a mission assigned by the Secretary of the Air Force.

Quote from: lordmonar on February 08, 2007, 09:09:47 PMWe are compiant now.  We cannot meet with requirments that have not been levied yet.

Are we really? I've only been on a couple of SAREX's, but I don't see any applications of NIMS/ICS. We should train the way we should be doing the job.

The phrase that comes to mind from active duty is "Train the way you fight, fight the way you train." Granted we don't fight, but "Train the way you work..." should be a little more regular.

Quote from: lordmonar on February 08, 2007, 03:13:21 AM
All of this is beside the point....CAP will be NIMS complaint when it really is required of us.

That's true, but there's a wide range of it being optional, which we're in now, where we can significantly lose missions because we don't meet minimum requirements other agencies are required to follow if they want any FEMA money for anything. The bigger issue is that this has been a multi-year process for states to slowly bit by bit work tehir way into increasing levels of compliance & there's quite a bit of latitude for mistakes & problems right now. CAP is procrastinating thru that process till someone flat out in writting orders them to comply immedeatly. When that happens it's too late, cause it'll take us several years to transition & build a training program that walks our people thru in large enough numbers (less frustrating) to create a usable force, and all during that time there'll be no slack cut & no sympathy while we sit on the sideline w/ nothing to do as our traditional missions are done by someone else that won't want to give them up later. That's the problem is we're wasting time & good-will that we desperately need.

QuoteWhen we say things are in draft form...we are talking specificly about the training requirments for the various SAR teams.  The training requirments that have been floating around this board...are only draft recommendations at this time.  They will be finailised sometime soon (I think they said by FY 08...so that would be in October).  When that happens the will be broadcasted to the various agencies out there and we (as on of those agencies) will make the necessary changes to our training or find other sources of training.

That makes sense, but it's wrong.

Yes the credentialling documents are just coming out this year. The SaR one is out, the comment period is over, it may be final as of Monday, we'll see. That covers GTM under WSAR, and that's THE hardest thing we have to face. The individual training standards for UDF, fixed-wing, and some upper staff jobs are not out yes but will be over the course of this year. Who knows what they'll say, but most of it will be accomplishable.

The reason I say it's wrong that we'll be ordered to comply at that point though is cause we haven't been so far. States were required to type & report all their resources according to the definitions & requirements set they year before. CAP hasn't even losely attempted to do that. It'd require some re-organization & changing the way we do some of our business, but not so hard YET. But we've chosen NOT to do that. However, NB voted to get compliant, and orderd OPS to come up with a plan, that's where we are now. So knowing that, you should look at the credentialing & typing guides & start supplementing your training & reformatting your teams to fit that model.

QuoteThis is not rocket science guys....nor is it the end of the world.  We have plenty of time to get in the groove.  There will be a phase in period....as someone said....you can expect it will be years before anyone is not allowed to participate in a FEMA operation.

Let's not get the horse before the cart.  What CAP needs to be doing now....is someone form NHQ needs to be in on these NIMS working groups to get first hand information and to represent CAP's view points.

Well certainly it's not rockety science, but the problem is we're in the middle of a structurally phased phase-in period & & a couple years behind in the process thinking about coming up with aplan for how to maybe get started. That & being volunteerzs trying to meet the in-process phase-in period for paid agencies... it SHOULD have been a challenge if we'd started at the begining, now it's going to be hard work & a lot of people aren't going to like it as we go.

Quote from: Hawk200 on February 08, 2007, 09:47:19 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on February 08, 2007, 09:09:47 PMWe are compiant now.  We cannot meet with requirments that have not been levied yet.

Are we really? I've only been on a couple of SAREX's, but I don't see any applications of NIMS/ICS. We should train the way we should be doing the job.

The phrase that comes to mind from active duty is "Train the way you fight, fight the way you train." Granted we don't fight, but "Train the way you work..." should be a little more regular.

When I say that we are complaint I mean that our individual members and CAP training requirments meet the current NIMS training requirements.  The new NIMS SAR training requirments are still draft.  They have not been mandated yet and not phase in date has been set yet.  As far as how we do SAREX....here in Nevada we follow them pretty good....good enough for us to intregrate with other agencies in a multi-lat if we needed to.

Quote from: lordmonar on February 09, 2007, 12:47:45 AM
When I say that we are complaint I mean that our individual members and CAP training requirments meet the current NIMS training requirements.  The new NIMS SAR training requirments are still draft.  They have not been mandated yet and not phase in date has been set yet.  As far as how we do SAREX....here in Nevada we follow them pretty good....good enough for us to intregrate with other agencies in a multi-lat if we needed to.

OH NO WE DON'T, not even close.

Over three years ago everyone from field trainee to mission staff had to have the appropriate level of IC100-800. No one has those courses, at least not thru CAP. The 10 question quizes on CAP.gov don't count in place of 2-4 seperate 2hr to 4day courses. All that pre-dates NIMS even.

Then what two years ago they they developed resource typing so ICs could request resouces & know what they were getting. Everyone was required to reorganize along those lines; there hasn't even been a whisper about that in CAP.

Then last year states & independent agencies were required to inventory & report what they had according to the resource typing standards. Everyone's required to do that annually from now on or you aren't supposed to get federal money from any agency.

Now this year they are putting out individual standards for those team members. They've been working on those for almost two years. They put one out at a time for review, then make it official & put out the next. All 8 sections I think it is will be official before the end of the FY (8sections x 45day review = 360days).

The point with this credentialling thing & where it crosses into officially issued IDs (based on verified training) is that it leaves no more wiggle room to keep avoiding this. It forces CAP to be all the way in or all the way out. And with it we get smartcard photo IDs. That's a touchy subject with AF which requires some groundwork to address, and the requirements stuff requires asignificant transition in the way we train & operate. It's a big change that we're not ready for & we'd like to get CAP ready for it so we don't get stuck in a bad spot when there's no other choice.

Dnall, just because the review and comment period is over doesn't mean the draft version is now official.  I have personally seen it take well over a year for something the feds put out for comment as a draft to come back as an official version.  And that official version may bear little resemblence to the draft.  Or, I've seen the draft NEVER be finalized (one document I'm familiar with has gone on over 8 years as a draft). 

Obviously CAP hasn't changed any of our regs or procedures based on NIMS, but I think you are going way out on a limb to say that no one is doing anything.  For all you or I know NHQ ES has done nothing but work on this for months and provided a 50-page comment letter on a lot of these draft documents.  Or, they maybe have never looked at it. 

CAP has been using ICS for a while in my Wing.  There are still some kinks to work out, but for the most part I think our folks understand the basics.  Frankly, I've taken 100,200,700,800 and I don't really think they added all that much to my toolbox.   

Quote from: RiverAux on February 09, 2007, 01:59:12 AM
Dnall, just because the review and comment period is over doesn't mean the draft version is now official.  I have personally seen it take well over a year for something the feds put out for comment as a draft to come back as an official version.  And that official version may bear little resemblance to the draft.  Or, I've seen the draft NEVER be finalized (one document I'm familiar with has gone on over 8 years as a draft). 

Obviously CAP hasn't changed any of our regs or procedures based on NIMS, but I think you are going way out on a limb to say that no one is doing anything.  For all you or I know NHQ ES has done nothing but work on this for months and provided a 50-page comment letter on a lot of these draft documents.  Or, they maybe have never looked at it. 

CAP has been using ICS for a while in my Wing.  There are still some kinks to work out, but for the most part I think our folks understand the basics.  Frankly, I've taken 100,200,700,800 and I don't really think they added all that much to my toolbox.   

I don't want to continue any argument but I will say that through my time in Boys Scouts, EMS etc. Ive taken those four, and many others besides; like hazmat managing volunteers etc...  I thought that it was nice to know, but
like River said... not too helpful overall. Remember ICS was originally formed around the early 70's for California's Dept of Forestry to use at wildfires.   It has been around awhile, but then again, it has evolved alot too.   CAP can also evolve. I think that as long as our membership takes 100, 200, 700 and 800 we should be 'OK' for a bit.  I see no current reason to charge after SARTECH, unless you live somewhere like Colorado where 'wilderness tech recscue might be necessary. Because I can say in a state like IL... its not. (at least not for CAP)
I'm personally certified, but thats for work... doesn't mean the other guys in my squadron need to be.

CAP isn't part of the stakeholders that created these documents. They've refused to participate in the system until just recently when they accepted that we won't be getting any kind of exemption & voted to comply.

Far as this or future documents, they don't care what you say, the very most expert people in the world have been working on this two years. It was final before it was published. It's a formaility that it has to go thru a comment period, and if someone sees a spelling error or some equiv alternative that got left off the list, or some clarification that's needed, then they may fix it. But it won't be massively overhauled. Far as the final publication date I don't know what the plan is. They may publish each of them in sequence to comments & then at the end officially publish one massive document, or they may push the SaR standards out Monday morning. It doesn't matter cause you know roughly what it's going to say.

Honestly look at that thing, there's not one unreasonable or even very difficult thing on there. SaRTechII isn't a whole lot more complicated than GTM, it just can't get pencil whipped so easy. PFT? Come on, you know very well a 300lbs guy that can't make it up the steps doesn't need to be in the woods trying to save anyone. It's just a matter of time before he's another victim. There's nothing else on there to worry about. It's all pretty easy to do, and just as useful most of the stuff in our current task guide that won't get used 99.999% of the time, but then there's that once in a lifetime, and that's what we're suppsoed to train for.

That's not even the point though. I'm not saying jump the gun & chase off after those standards before they're required. I'm saying FEMA is on a path that will force CAP to get compliant just like your local fire dept or not be able to do corporate or disaster missions. The Card remember was what this thread was talking about, the tool by which CAP would have to actually meet real quals just like professionals or get the hell out of the way. NIMS compliant right now means ICS, & it means resource typing. CAP needs to get people thru the IC100-800 courses pronto, and be typing & inventoring teams at the same time. In 24months we should be close to caught up. Between now & then the credentialing standards are going to be required. When that happens we need to be primed & ready to adapt.

I've said before and I'll say again that I don't have any significant problems with most of the NIMS stuff that I've seen. 

However, I think we are underestimating the impact of other volunteer groups other than CAP on this process.

I think CAP would compare pretty darn well to most local general SAR groups in terms of organization and record keeping for our program.  For us we're talking about some record keeping changes and we could probably pretty quickly be in line with id requirements.  A lot of these local groups probably don't even have id cards in the first place and I suspect qualification record keeping is not that sophisticated.  They will be the ones to hoot and holler the most at these sorts of requirements. 

For example, it would not surprise me one bit if a local volunteer SAR team that was in very good with the local sheriff got the sheriff to call his cousin the US Senator and BAM the requirements might change pretty signifiantly and pretty quickly because they were too onerous on the local "first responders".    And, yes this very well could happen if the photo id/record keeping system (to swing us back more on point) were very expensive.   

I'm not sure CAP has quite enough pull to swing something like that but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if a group like that did.   

I think the standards are pretty well set. If the law enforcement and fire fighting communities haven't been able to affect much change, the volunteer SAR community doesn't stand a chance. The main tweaking you'll probably see is making the requirements non-propriatory, i.e mandating one organization's certifications vs. allowing any org. to certify the standards have been met.

^ I think that's proabbly right.

The cards in question are standardized with a pretty serious chip in them that works with some advanced software & such. Local agencies wouldn't be issuing these things, it'd be a fairly secure operation from a handful of agencies. Probably all federal agencies IDs will contain the necessary data in the right format, & that includes CAC. Then either FEMA or who they delegate to (probably one state office) would do the rest. It's a touch pricey too.

What's wrong with having a CAC-looking card that has no chip or magstripe on it?

Well AF says it's a security risk. This particular standard says all emergency responders must eventually have a card standardized to this particular format that has some specialized NIMS info a chip. I don't know if CAC or certain other smartcard IDs would work & be able to add this NIMS info or not. I don't know that FEMA has figured that out yet, I think that may be 2008/9. Right now is still getting everyone set to typed resources & understanding the credentialing standards. A card this way or that in the midst of all the craziness everyone's been thru seems like a small deal.

I really don't buy the whole security risk thing.  It's a portrait oriented PVC card with a photo in the top left corner.  How unoriginal is that?  If you don't use the same font, text positioning, and graphics as a CAC... it's not a CAC.

I got no problem with your logic, but apparently the AF does. Maybe they think that beret restricts blood flow to brain/eyes & you can't tell this person isn't in the AF. Hell I don't know, The only Air Staff I'll ever be on is going to have the word "hockey" in between. FEMA says FIPS-201 SmartCards, AF is going to have to get over it & we all come to an understanding.

Quote from: DNall on February 10, 2007, 04:29:37 AM
I got no problem with your logic, but apparently the AF does. Maybe they think that beret restricts blood flow to brain/eyes & you can't tell this person isn't in the AF. Hell I don't know, The only Air Staff I'll ever be on is going to have the word "hockey" in between. FEMA says FIPS-201 SmartCards, AF is going to have to get over it & we all come to an understanding.

No...the USAF will not have to get over...FEMA will have to provide if they require it.

From the USAF's point of veiw it will be a non-issue....they don't require the photo ID as it is....CAP provides them to assist members who have trouble establishing their bone fides with the standard CAP ID...that is all.  The USAF does not want to issue CAP members CAC cards....good for them....let's get over and move on.  If FEMA requires some sort of CAC card for all emegency respoinders, they will have to set up a way to issue them out.  Because I know not everyone is going to be able to afford the costs.

Quote from: lordmonar on February 10, 2007, 05:55:17 AM
From the USAF's point of veiw it will be a non-issue....they don't require the photo ID as it is....CAP provides them to assist members who have trouble establishing their bone fides with the standard CAP ID...that is all.  The USAF does not want to issue CAP members CAC cards....good for them....let's get over and move on.  If FEMA requires some sort of CAC card for all emegency respoinders, they will have to set up a way to issue them out.  Because I know not everyone is going to be able to afford the costs.

That's the past, we're discussing the future now. DHS will require this, probably in the 08/09 timeframe but it could be sooner, and it's based on a presidential directive and a political issue that ahs lots of support in Congress. Stronger than the AF is what I'm saying.

I understand that FEMA is potentially the issuing agency, as could be any number of others they designate (state EMA or AF being the prime contenders). The problem is these are designed to replace local agency IDs; they would be issued to you as a CAP member, stating CAP as your agency on the card, issued to you based on your ES quals, and required of you to perform missions. That functionally makes it an official ID over which AF has jurisdiction. Therefore, AF has to accept what DHS is saying or they have to bring us under the DoD system. I don't care which it is, but they have to work it out. Ultimately I think AF will clean it up nicely, but I think they'll be shocked right off the bat.

Quote from: DNall on February 10, 2007, 07:09:16 AMThe problem is these are designed to replace local agency IDs; they would be issued to you as a CAP member, stating CAP as your agency on the card, issued to you based on your ES quals, and required of you to perform missions.

Replacement?  I highly doubt that.  They may be required to prove your FEMA credintials...but they are not going to replace your local agency Identification.  There is no way they could ever make that stick!  They may replace our 101 cards...simply because they serve the same purpose...but they will not replace out CAP ID..because not everyone in CAP takes part in ES....why would FEMA issue a card to someone who does just AE or CP stuff?  A Fire Department secratary does not need a FEMA card if he is not part of the incedent response team.  A Boy Scout does not need the FEMA card only those members of an SAR Explorer post.

I thing you are going way overboard on this ID issue.  Sure FEMA may require us to carry a card that they can use to verifty our training status and other inportant data.  But that does not mean anything to the CAP Photo ID.

As far as DHS and DoD butting heads....guess who is going to win that one?

That functionally makes it an official ID over which AF has jurisdiction. Therefore, AF has to accept what DHS is saying or they have to bring us under the DoD system. I don't care which it is, but they have to work it out. Ultimately I think AF will clean it up nicely, but I think they'll be shocked right off the bat.
[/quote]

There's no point to another photo ID. This one would ID you as being a CAP member. The other one is meaningless internally & externally, this one is an offical federal photo ID. I don't see that anyone not involved in ES really needs one, certainly not enough that it's economically feasable.

The cards, as I understand it, are designed to replace local agency IDs, and the secretary would get one too. It may not have a lot of info on it, but she'd get one to ID her as an employee of a legit response agency, and it'd be paid for at least initially by DHS grant money.

This isn't DHS versus DoD. It's Congress & President agreeing on an issue that was big after 9/11 & still is off the commission list, which agency fails to follow that order?

I think you're nuts if you think local agencies will stop issuing their own ids in favor of a fedeal id.  They are not going to wait around for months for the feds to send a card leaving their own employee without any identification. 

I think lordm is right about this.  This will be an additional card to be used for ES work by ES workers in multi-agency environments.  Our non-ES folks will not get them because they won't have any ES quals, so they will still need a CAP id.  It could replace our 101 cards potentially, but thats it. 

We'll see. The 9/11 commission & congress were very clear that they wanted anyone that could concievablly be in an emergency response center or trusted with a case of water to have one of these IDs. Hell at one point if you recall they were going to require state driver's licenses to meet these standards, but that didn't fly, this will.

Quote from: DNall on February 11, 2007, 02:02:18 AM
We'll see. The 9/11 commission & congress were very clear that they wanted anyone that could concievablly be in an emergency response center or trusted with a case of water to have one of these IDs. Hell at one point if you recall they were going to require state driver's licenses to meet these standards, but that didn't fly, this will.

And the next time the Missippi starts flooding...FEMA is really going to turning away people who are volunteering for sand-bag detail?  Again...I understand where your point of view is coming from.....but in reality....on desaster day.....no one is going to care if you have finished ICS-100 before they hand you a shovel and a box of sand bags.

However, we're not the average guy off the street who might just show up at that levee.  With CAP we need orders to go down to that levee and those orders aren't going to be cut if we don't meet the official qualifications for sandbagging or whatever the mission might be. 

What the hell does that matter? Are there going tobe disasters where they are overwhelmed & have to take any warm body off the street for idiot detail? Sure, and there are provisions for how to do that, but it has nothing to do with CAP.

We're talking about being on a national register of teams that doesn't distinguish between you & paid full-time professional. It jsut says WSAR tpe III & your cost are X, logistics footprint is Y, & you're located Z miles from the work. Everything else is standardized so they don't care. Someone trained by them has sworn to your quals & taken legal responsibility if they whipped it thru.

The fact is, people that think they're qual'd coming into the AO either on their own or when theri agency jumps the gun, but who really can't stack up w/ profssionals &/or aren't needed, do much more harm then good.

There's also a big part of this that's about fraud, waste, & security. When they credential you it means someone's taking legal responsibility for you & you can't get in the ICP w/ a card you made at Kinkos & sign for a truck load of generators. If you do that with federal ID then you'll either go to jail or your agency will be held responsile, unless you had authorization & paperwork. No one gets anything w/o one of those cards though.

You guys very much know the differnce. Don't nit pick at unrelated things you know have nothing to do with CAP or this process.

Dnall, were you talking to me or lordm there?  I think I was more or less supporting your position this time. 

LM I think in that one, reinforced yours.

I understand your point DNall....I'm just think that you are exaggerating the situation.  When FEMA gets the ID card system and the accreditation system up and running...CAP will comply.  I also think that there will be a very long grace period for implementation....and I also think that there will be many, many loop holes in the directives that will allows IC's to just ignore it.

The nature of incidents is that you never know what you are going to get.  You of course plan for the expected...but the you leave yourself open to deal with all the rest.

You may be getting an impression from me that's more unreasonable than I really am on this or in general for that matter. I've been hip deep in big time disasters before with CAP, from a govt perspective, and as an EOC member. I know very well that great plans become highly fluid on first contact with the enemy.

Far as implementation, of course there will be a phase in period. The problem is that CAP is getting such a late start already, and the nature of our volunteer org with members you can't force to go out & get things done in a timely manner means it takes longer for us to adapt; yet the timelines are written for paid emergency responders that get paid to zip right out & do it on the agency dime.

Plus there's the theoretical complication that AF controls photo IDs used within CAP, and when considering a valid federal ID that allows a degree of federal facility access in & out of disaster situations, they're sure as hell going to want to have their say in the process & it seems advisable to work with them early to make sure they understand the situation & are prepared to act or allow us to act appropriately when the time comes. A little heads up & prelim discussion ya know.

Considering these issues, I do believe this transition will be challenging for CAP & that we should be well prepared to pull the trigger at the first opportunity. That's what the initial question in the thread was about... this stuff looks to be on the horizon, what should CAP do to lay the groundwork so that when the time comes we can get transitioned at a pace that won't cause a gap in our ability to respond.

I think if you did some checking that you'd find out that many CAP types already have the 100 700 and 200.
And its NOT like they are hard, even if one does resort to taking them online.
If a memo went out from national telling us to get them ASAP, the 'ACTIVE' membership would have it within a months time.

I like cheese.


Seriously, you guys need a diversion here. :)  Take a moment to look outside and enjoy the lovely sunlight/moonlight and then return to engage the conversation.

There's a few routes that participating agencies can go.  As a preface, I personally don't believe FEMA or DHS is going to issue identification for every Tom, Dick and Harry that might step foot on an incident scene.  At the very most, perhaps the individual state EMAs will do something for their state or direct local jurisdictions to do the same.  Rather, I expect it to be a burden of the individual organizations.

So, what can CAP do? Well, one of four options: 1) Redesign the CAPF 101 to be formatted compliant to FIPS-201 standards and issue to members once they become ES qualified; 2) Redesign the CAP membership/identification card to FIPS-201 standards and and issue to all members in place of the existing card; 3) Partner with an agency (DOD, GSA, OPM, any/all of the above) to become an issuing point for CAP members of a CAP-distinct identification card (we are talking about a plain white PVC card here, it's not that hard to stock :)); 4) Something I'm not thinking of

Having said that -- I think y'all are worrying way too much about this whole issue. CAP will ensure its members are compliant. If they don't, they'll find out real fast and have directives attached to fix the problem posthaste.

It's not like this whole thing just popped up overnight.

Truthfully, it's still in the "popping up phase."

If you lean too far forward in the saddle, you just fall off the horse.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on February 12, 2007, 08:16:40 AM
I think if you did some checking that you'd find out that many CAP types already have the 100 700 and 200.   And its NOT like they are hard, even if one does resort to taking them online.  If a memo went out from national telling us to get them ASAP, the 'ACTIVE' membership would have it within a months time.

Basically CG Aux members had to do 100 and 700 with some having to do 200 and 800 and even though they had over a year to do it, a significant percentage were very late to get it done.  I haven't seen a "final" number, but the last estimate I saw was that about 10-20% of those who should have taken it hadn't by the deadline.  I've got some data somewhere, but don't have time to look it up, but that should be pretty close. 

Quote from: mclarty on February 12, 2007, 08:48:13 AM
I like cheese.


Seriously, you guys need a diversion here. :)  Take a moment to look outside and enjoy the lovely sunlight/moonlight and then return to engage the conversation.

There's a few routes that participating agencies can go.  As a preface, I personally don't believe FEMA or DHS is going to issue identification for every Tom, Dick and Harry that might step foot on an incident scene.  At the very most, perhaps the individual state EMAs will do something for their state or direct local jurisdictions to do the same.  Rather, I expect it to be a burden of the individual organizations.

So, what can CAP do? Well, one of four options: 1) Redesign the CAPF 101 to be formatted compliant to FIPS-201 standards and issue to members once they become ES qualified; 2) Redesign the CAP membership/identification card to FIPS-201 standards and and issue to all members in place of the existing card; 3) Partner with an agency (DOD, GSA, OPM, any/all of the above) to become an issuing point for CAP members of a CAP-distinct identification card (we are talking about a plain white PVC card here, it's not that hard to stock :)); 4) Something I'm not thinking of

Having said that -- I think y'all are worrying way too much about this whole issue. CAP will ensure its members are compliant. If they don't, they'll find out real fast and have directives attached to fix the problem posthaste.

It's not like this whole thing just popped up overnight.

That's all true... I think ultimately it'll be one FIPS-201 compliant card. Now in addtion to all the qual/currency data DHS wants on the chip, we can add membership currency data, & any 101 data that would exceed FEMA needs. I think it's going to have to be issued in partnership w/ a federal agency for logistics reasons if nothing else, but also to assuage AF concerns... etc. We'll get there eventually, I have no doubts or concerns at all about that. What I'm concerned about it the transition & CAP moving quickly to get caught up & on the challenging transofrmation pace NIMS is keeping. The fact of these ID cards merely forces CAP to comply with an outside schedule rather than do it at their own pace.

What is so important about the cards anyway? I know in the Army, DOD contractors are issued them, as well as DA civilians. It can't be a security issue can it because CAP personnel undergo a background check don't they?

I am new to this so it doesn't make sense to me. Here in Georgia, I am in the SDF and we are issued Georgia Department of Defense ID's. They look nearly identical to the old active duty military ID's.

Just doesn't make sense what the issue is. I have seen people on here complaining about checking equipment out and so on, but that doesn't happen! Many civilians work on base! The ID's themselves are only for convenience; they still will have rank and branch on them. It could easily say CAP or rank and then CAP for branch, or even civilian.

Quote from: RiverAux on February 12, 2007, 09:23:20 PM

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on February 12, 2007, 08:16:40 AM
I think if you did some checking that you'd find out that many CAP types already have the 100 700 and 200.   And its NOT like they are hard, even if one does resort to taking them online.  If a memo went out from national telling us to get them ASAP, the 'ACTIVE' membership would have it within a months time.

Basically CG Aux members had to do 100 and 700 with some having to do 200 and 800 and even though they had over a year to do it, a significant percentage were very late to get it done.  I haven't seen a "final" number, but the last estimate I saw was that about 10-20% of those who should have taken it hadn't by the deadline.  I've got some data somewhere, but don't have time to look it up, but that should be pretty close. 

When I joined the CG Aux I was told to bring proof of completion (100,200,700,800) with the completed membership application. I also had to take the CGAux safe boating class within 6 months of having joined. - OR SO I WAS TOLD  :)

Quote from: gallagheria on February 13, 2007, 03:11:17 PM
What is so important about the cards anyway? I know in the Army, DOD contractors are issued them, as well as DA civilians. It can't be a security issue can it because CAP personnel undergo a background check don't they?

I am new to this so it doesn't make sense to me. Here in Georgia, I am in the SDF and we are issued Georgia Department of Defense ID's. They look nearly identical to the old active duty military ID's.

Just doesn't make sense what the issue is. I have seen people on here complaining about checking equipment out and so on, but that doesn't happen! Many civilians work on base! The ID's themselves are only for convenience; they still will have rank and branch on them. It could easily say CAP or rank and then CAP for branch, or even civilian.

Well, these aren't CAC cards like the military uses. I think the AF could choose to give us CAC cards that serve this purpose if they wanted to, but that's not necessary.

CAC cards grant fairly broad unrestricted access to most DoD facilities. If you could join CAP & get past our weak membership check & then just drive on w/ who knows what in the trunk, then that's a security risk.

The check we do is just a criminal history & agency check. You can get past it w/an outstanding traffic warrant, a list of criminal convictions, while under investigation by state police for a serious crime, etc. It's not very good, but that's what you get for $15 & frankly it's the fingerprint process itself & lack of understanding as to what happens afterwords that we hope scares off undesirables. What we do is a good start, but it isn't recognized by the military. What CGAux does is good, and that's probably the direction we're going to want to move to down the road. I'm not saying everyone int he military or civilian/contractor is a good moral person, but they've been chacked out first & are in the system.

The real reasons that contractors get CACs are not because the've been screened (because many haven't).  It's two things:

1.  They need CACs in order to get to where they work every day without a lot of wasted time.

2.  The DoD needs them to be able to get to work every day witout a lot of wasted time.


When CAP finds themselves in the same situation, we'll get CACs too.


Incidentally, not all contractors get CACs.  Only those who need regular access to military facilities.  Many contractors work offsite, and don't get CACs.

Actually the issue CAP had on this was that most defense contractors have created corporate IDs that look very much like CAC cards, and CAP wanted to follow suit, but that was judged to be a security risk. Also retired or dependents get cards so they can get on base to the BX & such, which we also need to do. Those kids working the coffee stand do get a basic screening like CAP's, but it's done by DoD so it's recognized when ours isn't. Anyway, I don't think their security complain legitimately held a lot of water, but that's their call. This other card is not a CAC card, but it is a federal ID, and it will require AF approval. At that point I think they may look at it as DHS stepping on theri toes & decide to issue CAC or to be the controlling agency to issue the FIPS-201 cardds. I hope it's the 201 cards rather than CAC so we can put a lot of extra CAP data on it too, but whatever. They need to get a heads up this is coming, but otherwise this is about official credentialing requires adherence to the FEMA qual standards certified by and/or to an outside agency approved by DHS. It's just something to be aware of.

Quote from: DNall on February 16, 2007, 08:42:20 PM
Actually the issue CAP had on this was that most defense contractors have created corporate IDs that look very much like CAC cards, and CAP wanted to follow suit, but that was judged to be a security risk.

Where the heck did you get this idea?  I've yet to see a corporate ID that looks like a CAP card.  If you can name a major defense contractor with a CAC look-alike card, I'll go take a look (lot's of 'em around these parts)

I was at the NB where the CAC was discussed.  It was clear from the debate that what most advocates wanted was access to USAF bases - and they were hoping that a CAC look alike would get them that priviledge.  It had nothing to do with an attempt to emulate contractors - it was an attempt to gain additional USAF priviledges.

Which is exactly what USAF didn't want us to have, and so they changed the design, and changed their regs to make sure future CAP cards didn't get confused.

Quote from: Dragoon on February 20, 2007, 06:04:00 PM

Quote from: DNall on February 16, 2007, 08:42:20 PM
Actually the issue CAP had on this was that most defense contractors have created corporate IDs that look very much like CAC cards, and CAP wanted to follow suit, but that was judged to be a security risk.

Where the heck did you get this idea?  I've yet to see a corporate ID that looks like a CAP card.  If you can name a major defense contractor with a CAC look-alike card, I'll go take a look (lot's of 'em around these parts)

Talk to Nick there, in addition to former cadet & CAP-USAF, he's a SF SrA & expert in this field, not to mention having worked a few gate shifts.

QuoteI was at the NB where the CAC was discussed.  It was clear from the debate that what most advocates wanted was access to USAF bases - and they were hoping that a CAC look alike would get them that priviledge.  It had nothing to do with an attempt to emulate contractors - it was an attempt to gain additional USAF priviledges.

I don't believe I mentioned emulating contractors. I believe it was more a matter of these mere contractors get something like this even when they work nowhere near a base & the reason specifically is that if they need to go on bases they want something in a similiar format that the gate guard understands at a flash; yet CAP, your very own little brother Auxiliary, gets the shaft & not only that but you're going to say "security risk" to add insult to injury. It was no doubt, exactly like contractors did, an attempt to make base access less troublesome. That should be the case. If nothing else we have limited exchange priveledges & I don't know about you but I got a problem driving a couple hours to get stuff for my whole unit & then find out they won't let me in the gate, not to mention middle of the night when one of their ELTs is going off.

What the need to do is order us to complete whatever security & personnel requirements they feel are necessary to elivate that security risk. Lord knows that would open up some missions too.

QuoteWhich is exactly what USAF didn't want us to have, and so they changed the design, and changed their regs to make sure future CAP cards didn't get confused.

Right got that, now here comes FEMA mandating that we have federally controlled smart cards issued by an outside agency from their yet to be created but very short approved list, of which DoD will be one. I don't know what these are going to look like, but I'll bet ya it's a lot closer to CAC than what we have now. It's going to have to get worked out w/ AF, and that may require them to reconsider the previous ID decision.

Quote from: DNall on February 20, 2007, 06:37:55 PM

Quote from: Dragoon on February 20, 2007, 06:04:00 PM

Quote from: DNall on February 16, 2007, 08:42:20 PM
Actually the issue CAP had on this was that most defense contractors have created corporate IDs that look very much like CAC cards, and CAP wanted to follow suit, but that was judged to be a security risk.

Where the heck did you get this idea?  I've yet to see a corporate ID that looks like a CAP card.  If you can name a major defense contractor with a CAC look-alike card, I'll go take a look (lot's of 'em around these parts)

Talk to Nick there, in addition to former cadet & CAP-USAF, he's a SF SrA & expert in this field, not to mention having worked a few gate shifts.

Your "expert" is just a senior airmen gate guard?  That's kind of the bottom of the totem pole, dude.  You need better sources.

I say again, you stated "most defense contractors" created CAP lookalikes.  Name ONE major contractor.  I work with a fair number, and have yet to see an ID that looked like a CAC.

Quote from: DNall on February 20, 2007, 06:37:55 PM
I don't believe I mentioned emulating contractors. I believe it was more a matter of these mere contractors get something like this even when they work nowhere near a base & the reason specifically is that if they need to go on bases they want something in a similiar format that the gate guard understands at a flash; yet CAP, your very own little brother Auxiliary, gets the shaft & not only that but you're going to say "security risk" to add insult to injury.

Umm.  No.  CAP has no need for unrestricted base access, so they don't get unrestricted base access.  The contractor thing is not an issue - contractors get CACs when the government sponsors them to get CACs. It's on a case by case basis, and only given out to those who need base access.  Those contractors work for the government.  Literally.  As in "9 to 5" and get paid for it.  Of COURSE they get access and we don't.  We simply don't have that requirement.

Quote from: DNall on February 20, 2007, 06:37:55 PM
What the need to do is order us to complete whatever security & personnel requirements they feel are necessary to elivate that security risk. Lord knows that would open up some missions too.

The problem is the cost.  Someone has to pay for the cards and the issuing/management of them.  And they need a sure-fire way to get the card back if they want to revoke it.  With contractors it's simple - the company loses the contract if they don't get the card back.  With CAP...they just don't have that kind of control.  And we don't have that kind of need.  And if USAF wanted to revoke a member's base access, does that mean the person is removed from CAP? 

If CAP claims USAF can't fire CAP members, you are NEVER going to get a USAF ID card for all members.

The local base commander can always let CAP on if he wants to.  Thats how units that meet on base get in.  They have a need, so they get in.  No CAC needed.  Just a CAP ID and a picture ID.

Quote from: DNall on February 20, 2007, 06:37:55 PM

QuoteWhich is exactly what USAF didn't want us to have, and so they changed the design, and changed their regs to make sure future CAP cards didn't get confused.

Right got that, now here comes FEMA mandating that we have federally controlled smart cards issued by an outside agency from their yet to be created but very short approved list, of which DoD will be one. I don't know what these are going to look like, but I'll bet ya it's a lot closer to CAC than what we have now. It's going to have to get worked out w/ AF, and that may require them to reconsider the previous ID decision.

DoD will ensure that any FEMA card looks different enough from the CAC to keep non-DoD folks off of bases.

And Lord Monar is right - FEMA will have to issue the card, and it will only go to those CAP members who have quals.  The rest will do fine with the generic CAP ID card - no reason to change it.

Quote from: Dragoon on February 20, 2007, 08:43:06 PM
Your "expert" is just a senior airmen gate guard?  That's kind of the bottom of the totem pole, dude.  You need better sources.

...  :-\

1) I am not a gate guard.  In 4 years of Air Force service, I have worked about 3 weeks on a gate.
2) I am a senior airman (singular, not plural).  If you're going to insult me, at least use the right title... and I never claimed to be an expert, that was dubbed on me.  But, this is my career field and I can read AFIs and DoD guidance just as good as anyone.
3) In addition to 1 and 2 and being a security forces instructor (again, not a gate guard), I am also an AT (that's anti-terrorism) program manager and info/personnel/industrial security program manager.  I report directly to the unit commander on these matters.  I don't think I'm particularly low on the totem pole.

Now that I've defended my position as just another senior airman gate guard, I will speak:

I never said anything about contractors and their IDs, but since the subject came up : Any contractor on a military installation uses a CAC.  Not their corporate ID, but an actual CAC (the one with the nice green vertical stripe).  Many companies/organizations out in the private world have adopted portrait oriented identification badges and some of their elements may be arranged similar to a CAC, but I don't know of any that have straight out ripped the CAC design and used it for their own.  But, I'll say again ... contractors on military installations use CACs.

But let's get one thing straight.

The contractors who get CAC cards are the ones who work on base daily and have a need to access government computers.  Nick....does your average AAFES worker get a CAC card?  How about the folks working at the drycleaners/barbershop/Burger King/ect.

Bottom line.....CAP does not rate a CAC card.  We just don't need one.  It does not matter who else has one or why.

If your CAP duties requires frequent access to the base, all you got to do is contact your local USAF liason and see what wheels need to be greased. 

We recently had problem here at Nellis about base access on the CAP ID (non-picture).  So my CAP squadron commander talked to the SF guys and boom...no problem....everyone know and accepts the CAP ID as belonging to someone who have a valide need and authorisation to get on base.  Took about 20 minutes to get those wheels greesed and did not cost anyone anything.

Look... sorry first of all Nick for putting you in that spot. Owe ya another beer now. my bad.

Second, Nick knows I think probably 10 times more about the subject than me & probably most everyone here if I had to guess.

Third this conversation has zilch to do with CAC cards. I personally believe CAP should have the same base access as reserve dependents so that we can get to AAFES, reduce unneccessary conflict getting on & off base for activities & networking when gate guards (military or contrator) don't know the situation... however that's not what the AF reg says & I don't get to write AF regs, much less write out of them a power currently bestowed on facility commanders. Even if that level of access were granted, I still do not believe CAC cards would be necessary!!!

Fourth, I do believe the CAP photo ID should follow the general premise of the CAC format, which many agencies & contractors use (smart card, vertical format, etc). I do not have any desire to confuse people into thinking it is a CAC card, merely to put the right information in the spots they are used to looking so they can quickly & comfortably figure out what the deal is & act on standing policy rather than thinking you're trying to pull something. Again though, that's not my call & not the point of this thread.

Finally, I believe the card that will be issued by FEMA follows the above pattern for federal IDs, which is much more similiar to CAC than our new photo ID, and I believe AF may take issue with that if they don't get time for it to sink in. FEMA has expressly stated that the IDs will be issued by more than just them but will go thru a short list of approved clearing houses, I'm guessing that means states or the federal agency you're attached to. That logic follows to suggest that AF may or may not be the issuing agency in our case. For their own personnel also involved in disasters they may or may not add that information a CAC chip. What they do with CAP would be up for debate. I believe ultimately we'll end up with one smart card photo ID that replaces our current photo ID, membership & 101 cards, and may also contain pilot data (medical, fm5/91, etc). I don't know how this will work out, but I tink there are some thing CAP can do to make that shift work out in our favor & ensure that there are no speed bumps along the way.

I think we're a ways away from having the 101 card data on the chip seeing as how that can change for an individual person many times during any given year.  It would have to be re-programable at the local level.  Come to think of it, that would be necessary for the FEMA cards too.  Might have to take us back to the days when all your specialties expired at once, otherwise would have to regularly get new cards. 

yeah well maybe, I don't know. There was a previous convesation talking about a chipped CAP photo ID that would cover the ID, membership, & enhanced 101 data. Lots of very inexpensive readers to the field that make mission in/out-processing easier. Smaller number of still inexpensive writers that allow the cards to be reprogrammed. PW protected online software to do the writing.

Then I saw the credenialing standards for GT & wondered how CAP would be forced into that. Then I saw this card thing that seems to do that.

Then there was the seperate older debate about AF issues w/ CAP having vertically formatted official looking IDs. That are easy to understand by mil personnel.

I didn't come in this thread with an agenda, just several ideas converging & seems like there's a logical path to bring them together & come out for the best. I don't claim to know exactly what that is, I kinda hoped the thread could work that out. I just thought it provided an interesting set of subjects for CAP to consider w/ AF & maybe we had some collective insight.

Just to clarify if anyone has a misconception ... I do not advocate one way or another for CAP members to get CACs.  In honesty, I think the logistics alone would just about make it impossible.  I do agree that CAP needs some sort of professional, (preferably) FIPS-201 compliant multi-function identification credential.  However that objective is reached doesn't matter to me.

Capt Harris -- no sir, the generic AAFES employee gets an AAFES employee ID (DD Form 2574).  AAFES is a military activity, and they are non-appropriated fund employees of that military activity (not civil service, not contractors) so that's a unique animal all in itself.  Also, your dry cleaners/barber shop/Burger King employees are all AAFES concessionaires.  Nobody in these categories is a contractor.  When I talk about contractors, I mean the Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Rockwell, Chenega, etc. employees that work in military offices on military bases doing civilianized military jobs.

We did the same thing with Lackland.  A little education of the troops, and CAP membership cards immediately became an acceptable form of ID for base entry.  I just think the CAP membership card could be a lot better than it is.  That's my only position on this whole issue.

Thanks Nick....and I agree that the generic CAP card could be better.  We could require a passport type photo to be sent in with your fingerprint card and NHQ could scan these photos and make all CAP ID card the new photo card.

Quote from: lordmonar on February 21, 2007, 04:40:40 PM
Thanks Nick....and I agree that the generic CAP card could be better.  We could require a passport type photo to be sent in with your fingerprint card and NHQ could scan these photos and make all CAP ID card the new photo card.

Now that's a good idea...!

Its already been suggested and National shot it down before the AF had a chance.  ::) Granted I wasnt a member yet, but I heard from several SMs that it was reviewed mid 90's

I was a member then & not that I know of. Anyway back then we had the old laminated togetehr IDs that looked kinda like mil IDs. None of this smart card stuff or centrally issued cards. Where the tech is now & how inexpensive it is to put some of this together, it's a whole new thing.

Many HSPD-12 cards (FIPS-201) fail their first test
By Jason Miller, GCN Staff, 2/19/07

A majority of the identification cards agencies issued to meet Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12 fell short of complying with the federal standard and must be retested.

Industry and government officials confirmed that most cards issued in October had an assortment of problems—some of them major, such as a lack of interoperability, and some minor, such as using the wrong shade of blue on the card.

"There were over 100 tests the General Services Administration performed, but the most important one was for basic interoperability," said one department official close to the HSPD-12 process, who requested anonymity. "We knew we wouldn't pass because we have our own testing tool and we were having specific issues [other than interoperability]. But we didn't necessarily fail because, to me, [failing] means they weren't interoperable, and they were."

The official said many of that agency's problems were due to not meeting the standard's "persnickety" requirements.

http://www.gcn.com/print/26_04/43162-1.html?topic=homeland-security&CMP=OTC-RSS

Mike