CAP ground teams

[RiverAux]

As we're looking at increased requirements put on CAP ground SAR teams as part of the upcoming NIMS changes, maybe its time to re-asses CAP's ground team program. 

Although I'm not sure its stated anywhere, I think we can safely assume that the reason that CAP started ground teams was to complement its air search and rescue program, and specifically needed them to get to crashed airplanes located from the air.  Later, as ELTs were developed the ground team was focused on finding ELTS and every once in a while would get involved in a missing airplane search find.  And some ground teams have gotten fairly involved in lost-person type search missions.  Sometimes CAP ground teams formed the basis for disaster-relief operations such as running emergency shelters and similar tasks though not really related to ground SAR training. 

More recently it has been possible for people to do the ELT missions as UDF teams without having to do all the wilderness SAR training, but I'm not sure that the UDF option has really caught on all that well.  I suspet that most ELT missions are carried out by traditionally-trained ground teams. 

So, it seems likely that the requirements to have a certified wilderness SAR team will be ratcheted up due to NIMS.  This will cause many CAP members to make a choice of whether or not they will want to do the additional training given the likely use they will make of it in CAP. 

I suspect that at least over the near term (next 10 years) most CAP ground team missions will continue to be the now-traditional non-distress ELT missions.  So, I expect quite a few ground team personnel to drop that qual in favor of the DF team quals. 

On the other end of the spectrum a few hard charger ground team squadrons who have built the proper relationships with the locals and regularly get called on lost person searches will maintain the wilderness SAR quals and keep doing what they have been.  However, I think most will agree that this is a rarity in CAP.  Most CAP ground teams do not get called for such missions for many reasons (not enough people to make it worthwhile, bias against use of youths for SAR by local officials, etc.). 

The question that I have is whether or not CAP really needs to have wilderness SAR ground teams to accomplish our primary mission (finding lost airplanes)?  Lets face it, most of the time all they're doing is hiking from the car to the crash site based on coordinates or directions from the airplane.  Usually they're going to be accompanied by local law enforcement and medical personnel who have already or soon will be kicking CAP to the side anyway.  Most of those guys are probably not going to have any SAR credentials at all and they will be doing the same thing we are. 

I think what CAP needs to do is something like what they have done for the aircrews and actually work out what specific mission types they expect the ground teams to be able to respond to (60-1 proficiency flight profiles) and then work within NIMS to get properly credentialled to do it. 

For example, perhaps for our missing airplane searches we want to focus CAP personnel on finding the target from the air and then just turn the information over to the locals.  Instead, we might just send a liasion out with the locals on the ground with a handheld radio to coordinate with the CAP aircraft that has located the site.  Perhaps a DF team could be attached if necessary.  That sort of strategy may be more feasible in many, many CAP units that don't have enough people to form a proper ground team.

On the other hand, if CAP really does want to have its members out on the ground doing lost person searches they need to make that a task a lot more prominent and develop some strategies for responding to these taskings.  In many areas this might involve developing a Group or Wing level ground team that would maintain the high wilderness SAR standards that would train together on a regular basis just like other independent SAR teams.  Such a ground team would be more or less independent of squadrons and would have its own leadership.  Heck, there is no reason you couldn't make it some sort of virtual squadron like the All Iowa cadet squadron and recruit individual members from around the area that wouldn't be part of the regular CAP squadron system. 

I suppose that what I'm saying is that CAP as an organization will need to make the same sort of choices individual CAP members will have to do .... we may not be able to keep doing all the types of missions we have been and may have to drop some in order to meet the new qualifications in others that are closer to our core competencies. 

[DNall]

Good frank presentation of the issue...

UDF was created when GTM got harder so we could still have enough people out there to turn off ELTs. GTM was turned into tasks that are close to SaRTech II. The bigger thing is there's no incentive to go thru GTM2 or 1 when you can skip to GTL. No, the WSAR standards will clean it up nicely, apply some standardization & organization that we really need. The big adds will be working with some externals on some of the quals, a PFT, and the standards for GTL & GBD will jump. It's all good things though.

What I can see happening is established teams w/ alternates for each year. Mostly that's going to be unit based (type III & IV teams), but as you move up in type level you're going to get maybe Wg or even Region based teams (type I & II teams are actually lots of teams - around 48 people with an EMT). The membership on those teams may change from year to year, maybe they'll be split up to create the core for two teams, maybe you'll spend years with the same people. However it works you'll spend more of your CAP time focused on the one job & a lot of training time ready to do it right next to paid professionals. .... ehh crap just saw you explained something similiar.

Why do we need to do this? Well the simple answer is you still need that qual'd GT to hike into a an area & SaR for crashed planes, which are by the way not the only thing AFRCC does, we cover the full range of AFRCC taskings. Now once you're there in the mutual aid inventory then the IC doesn't ask for particular people, he asks for a resource typed asset, they scan down the list to see who's close & if the cost/logistics profile fits the situation, then bang you're off to work. Local relationships may generate a request, but it will only go to you if you're the best resource for the job. The whole point of this thing is to knock out the "who you know" angle & get rid of assuming this person is qual'd or not & put it into a standardized verified system.

Yes you're right though that CAP has to make some tough choices & hard changes in this process. You can't maintain the qual level of a dedicated SaR team if you spend a couple days a year on it, it takes a regular dedicated effort with set crews. i think this is going to be a real good thing for us in the long run, & a lot of the people acting like they can do this but really can't a re going to get a wakeup call. I also think you'll see a lot of members leave & a lot of new more drievn members come in , and the overall age drop a good bit. That's just speculation though, we'll see. I do not think we need to give anything up though. And when you see how this works with mutual aid, I think you'll start to see why I've been saying we need to bump up our officership standards so we can cycle people into operational leadership levesl for multi-agency interoperability.

[RiverAux]

I'm fairly sure we will lose at least 10-20% of the people qualified in a task if we increase the standards and don't "grandfather" in existing personnel. 

It will also be interesting to see how CAP reacts to the standards for the disaster relief type missions that we tend to respond to with a hodge-podge of ground team and other CAP members (shelter operations, for example).  We won't just be able to jump in and do that sort of thing anymore.  So, we will have to decide whether that sort of activity is something we want CAP to do ahead of time and train for it like everybody else. 

I strongly suspect that we will lose a fair percentage of squadron-based ground teams when the new standards come into effect.  Heck, a very strong majority of squadrons in my Wing don't have real ground teams now. 

What we will probably end up doing is depending more and more on ground teams from other agencies and organizations for "real ground SAR" missions.  I've seen a little of that in my own Wing recently.  And I'm not so sure that this is a bad thing.   If we get used to calling in them for our airplane missions then maybe they'll get used to calling us (air and/or ground resources) in for their lost person missions.

Let me ask this....a long-time complaint that I've heard over and over again is a lack of dedication to ground SAR in CAP.  Do you think that in order to maintain a group or Wing level ground team CAP is going to be willing to pay for fuel and equipment to provide for enough training to maintain their proficiency?  If it takes the equivalent of one Wing sarex's worth of flying funding to maintain a Wing ground team, would it get done? 

Although CAP has begun to resolve ground team communications issues by issuing good radios to its teams, other basic equipment is left up to the squadron to purchase.  Heck, we don't even provide modern DF equipment to our folks.  I strongly expect that under the new standards wilderness SAR teams are going to be expected to have a good equipment inventory and allowing for that will be a major stretch on CAP resources.     

[SarDragon]

Well, we didn't really grandfather in existing GT folks with the last change. Everyone became a GTM3 until they got the additional GTM2/1 items signed off. If no action was taken, the member remained a GTM3.

[RiverAux]

You're not thinking far enough back.  When we went to the current task-based training in about 2000 we grandfathered in everybody who was already qualified in that specialty even though most would agree the prior standards were not that high and were extremely uneven in their application. 

In regards to the 3-tier GTM system, you are right that we did the right thing in making everybody start at the bottom and either work or argue (based on experience) their way up the scale when we made that switch. 

[SarDragon]

OK, I was barely back into ES in 2000, after a multi-decade break.

[DNall]

Lose people... yeah we'll lose folks from GT dropping back to UDF, and a percentage of the GT people that can't hack it will drop all the way out of CAP. Then some existing members & new recruits will come on strong to meet pro-standards & the promise of these more meaningful missions. It'll balance out in the end.

Disaster relief, shelter mgmt, etc... I've heard speculation CERT would be the training basis to cover those BS missions. It's about worthless anything beyond the very most basic intro, but it does tick off a couple real requirements. Shelter mgmt is a red cross thing, I'd just assume let them have it, and most CERT teams are more in the way in a real disaster than they are helpful. We need to be shooting for front line roles, not this crap.

Danger to Sq based Teams, most teams in CAP aren't legit now.... That's what the standard are about, seperating the legit from the BS. i'm happy to step to real standards & I think a lot of other people are going to feel the same way when tey see the light at teh end of the tunnel. I don't see how it effects Sq based teams, not at teh type III/IV level. You should be able to pull 4 such people together at a local unit that does lots of GT ops. The only thing wrong with pulling peopel from multiple units is the logistics of practicing together. No, I think 4 mand team w/ two alternates based at the local unit level & recruit to fill the void. I don't think it'd be that hard to fill.

Have to depend on others, we aren't good enough... we are good enough. We just have to refocus & work hard. If you run you reformat to dedicated GSAR teams that meet these standards then you'll get a good result, and the idea is to be just as good as those outsiders you're talkng about so we can be called to deploy in their place on those non-AF missions.

Would they pay crap load of money to gear & training to meet these standards... I don't know that it requires much money. There's some things that sure would be nice. More appropriate GT vehicles for instance, & standardized team gear pre-installed. That's not necessary though. Members always seem to turn up with a 4wd SUV & all the right personal & mostly the team gear too. There's not much costly training involved. What you do as a type IV WSAR team member is the same as type I. The difference is one's a four man team & one's 48 people (12 teams) w/ attached medical specialist (EMT) and command & control element (GBD & support staff/comms). The individual skills aren't really changed though.

Need good gear, CAP don't provide now, can we do this... well I don't see any reason CAP would suddenly start supplying gear. It'd be nice, but right now it seems like teams somehow come up with everything they might need. I think it might be appropriate to supply the gear for a type I/II team & spread it around to type II/IV responders, but I don't see them spending millions on this, and whatever does get spent would be justified to AF & appropriated by congress.

[ZigZag911]

Shelter mgmt is a red cross thing, I'd just assume let them have it

Up here in much of NER, Red Cross local chapters consist primarily of VERY senior citizens....they can run a shelter for a brief ("surge") situation....a heat wave, a blizzard, depending on local CERT types to hand out bologna sandwiches....when it turns to anything "sustained", they need (and look for) outside help, especially from CAP...for instance, we had some serious flooding back in 98-99, and ARC was asking CAP officers (trained in shelter management, with wing approval) to open and operate shelters in the affected areas.....they simply did not have people that could do it.

[RiverAux]

Have to depend on others, we aren't good enough... we are good enough. We just have to refocus & work hard. If you run you reformat to dedicated GSAR teams that meet these standards then you'll get a good result, and the idea is to be just as good as those outsiders you're talkng about so we can be called to deploy in their place on those non-AF missions.

You dramatically misunderstood my comment.  I didn't say we would have to depend on others because our people weren't good enough, I said we might have to because we don't have enough of them.  Frankly, I'm fairly happy with our current standards but even now we don't really have enough GT folks in most areas to be able to fully respond to our missions in the way we would like.   Once the standards are increased, it will be even harder to do our air search missions without a lot of ground help from other agencies. 

I think 4 mand team w/ two alternates based at the local unit level & recruit to fill the void. I don't think it'd be that hard to fill.

In order to really guarantee a full 4-man team at all times you really need 12 qualified people according to my experience.  And, lets get real, a 4-person team may actually be adequate for a typical CAP ground SAR mission where all they have to do is follow directions to the wreck.  However, a 4-person team is going to be of very limited usefulness on a lost-person search.  Sure, every little bit helps, but if you go to the sheriff and say you've got a whopping 4 person ground team he isn't going to take you seriously. 

Now, the hardcore ground SAR squadrons will continue under the new rules, but the ones that are only marginal now, either due to available personnel or inclination to train for that mission, will drop out. 

Lose people... yeah we'll lose folks from GT dropping back to UDF, and a percentage of the GT people that can't hack it will drop all the way out of CAP. Then some existing members & new recruits will come on strong to meet pro-standards & the promise of these more meaningful missions. It'll balance out in the end.

I don't think so.  Right now CAP has very good ground SAR training standards.  Yes, they are not the "NASAR" standards, but they're pretty darn close.  I bet in many counties with CAP squadrons the ONLY real ground SAR resource is the CAP unit.  If having real standards was going to attract a lot of folks to our teams, it would already be happening.  Adding on more requirements is unlikely to cause a rush of people to us.  If we were going from having absolutely horrible standards or none at all, I might agree with you, but I don't think this is where we're at now. 

[DNall]

Shelter mgmt blows. If Red Cross is having trouble handling their business then sounds like they need to address that. If they lean too hard on CAP then they'll find themselve disappointed when CAP is pushed out doing front line SaR & assessment work.

If we have trouble fielding teams now under the sandards we've been using last 5-6 years, and now those are going to bump up & fewer people will be able ot make it for whatever reason... that means we aren't doing our job & have to fall back on others. Obiously part of this process involves transforming our membership & organization to meet the challenge.

Standard teams are 4-man. That's the basic operating level. Clearly if the mission requires more you request more. That's where the system comes in, they ask for 10 teams they get 40 people. FEMA defines what the teams are, we work in that system to make a serious contribution. The Type I & II teams are larger self supporting forces. It's all quite logical. And by the way you don't go to the local SO & offer your services. They call the state, the state sees you on a sheet of equals, you get the call along with whatever else they need & AF pays for it.

A lot of people aren't involved w/ CAP because we have BS missions. We don't really save people, we turn off non-distress ELTs & look around for bodies at crash locations. Give people a chance at serious SaR work w/ the AF name on top & give them well organized structured access to all the training needed at no to low cost. The people that you want will respond, and outside of that you need to recruit just like the volunteer fire dept does.

[ZigZag911]

Shelter mgmt blows. If Red Cross is having trouble handling their business then sounds like they need to address that. If they lean too hard on CAP then they'll find themselve disappointed when CAP is pushed out doing front line SaR & assessment work.

We serve where we're needed.

Generally we can 'multi-task' (devote some people when needed to shelter help, others to damage assessment).

Most of the assessment is aircrews....shelters get worked (when we are needed) mostly by ground pounders and mission manager types.

[RiverAux]

And by the way you don't go to the local SO & offer your services

I was talking about the regular contact with local emergency mgt officials that squadron ES officers are supposed to be doing.....  If the SO doesn't know you have a team in the first place, he sure isn't going to ask for it.  

By the way, there is nothing prohibiting CAP from officially offering its services during a mission though in effect what you're doing is saying "We're here and here is what we can do, if you want us to help out call ....."

A lot of people aren't involved w/ CAP because we have BS missions. We don't really save people, we turn off non-distress ELTs & look around for bodies at crash locations. Give people a chance at serious SaR work w/ the AF name on top & give them well organized structured access to all the training needed at no to low cost. The people that you want will respond, and outside of that you need to recruit just like the volunteer fire dept does.

There is not much keeping a gung-ho CAP ground SAR squadron from becoming a "serious SAR team" if they want now.  If they have enough people, follow the training standards, and develop good relationships with the locals they could have more real ground SAR missions than they could handle.  If a squadron or Wing wanted such a team, they could have one now and the flocks of recruits you suggest would be coming in now.  The fact is that we don't have enough units with a real interest in ground SAR now.  Without that interest, increasing the standards won't do anything positive at all.  

However, it brings us back around to the original point of this thread --- CAP needs to make a decision about where it wants to focus its SAR and DR efforts and train accordingly.  If we really want to do ground SAR on lost person searches and missions other than missing airplane SAR, then we will have to make it a real priority.  We won't be able to talk the talk without walking the walk anymore.

[DNall]

Shelter... I get you're doing what you can where you can, but you understand there's really a higher calling for us as CAP members, and Red Cross has their own responsibilities to take care of. It isn't our place to fill their voids or missions, it's our place to ge out on the cutting edge & loading up our teams behind to sustain that for weeks or months if necessary.

Local contacts... you still need those relationships to share training resources & opportnities, but under this system it really doesn't matter for missions. You go on a state & national register of resources listed by location & logistics footprint (no distinction or preferences for your affiliation, just standardized merit).

[Major Carrales]

Dennis,

I have to disagree.  CAP needs to be ready to do things like shelters, we have a National Level MOU with Red Cross and countless other local understandings.

We can ill afford to limit ourselves.  Service to the Air Force and community means just that...be it in the true field for a week, filling sand bags, flying disaster assessment or shelter management.

Yes, we have to do the hardcore stuff and offer it...but there is much more for us to do.  The white trangle against the blue background mandates we do our part of civil defense.

[ZigZag911]

Shelter... I get you're doing what you can where you can, but you understand there's really a higher calling for us as CAP members, and Red Cross has their own responsibilities to take care of. It isn't our place to fill their voids or missions, it's our place to ge out on the cutting edge & loading up our teams behind to sustain that for weeks or months if necessary.

While they do happen, REDCAPs are much rarer in NER than in some other parts of the country.

Of course we need to train and be prepared for any mission...but in this neck of the woods, it is just as likely to be filling sandbags or distributing bottled water as DFing.

[DNall]

I wasn't talking about looking for a missing plane & stay home when red cross is screwed cause they hadn't done their job properly. I was talking about in most any kind of disaster situation that's going to require shelters, CAP's role should be out looking for people in need of rescue, or hunckered down w/ gear in place to spring out & do that at the first opportunity.

[RiverAux]

So, are you saying that our ES activities should be limited to SAR only?  I think this should definetely be the case for our ground teams, after all SAR is what they train for.  But, I've got no problem with training other CAP personnel (which may or may not include some incidental GT members) to do other such ES duties as shelter ops.  After all, we're tasked to "To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies."  This could easily apply just as much to shelter management as ground or air SAR. 

But, that is why I think we need to take a real hard look at our entire ES program.  If we want to do shelter ops or other activities we need to make that decision and adopt the appropriate standards and training to carry them out properly.   

[DNall]

It's okay to do shelter mgmt, I don't have a problem with CAP assisting, I won't do it again, but overall it's fine. What I'm saying is shelters, just like slinging sandbags, is not a thing we should focus on. It's a thing the red cross needs to focus on, cause when the chips are down our people need to be out front.

Increasingly with these new FEMA standards the line btwn us & paid responders will blur a bit. We'll have a chance at some meaningful stuff... and no not only SaR, there is a lot of assessment to be done, and then support of front line responders with comm & forward logistics functions. We offer the unique capability of an organically combined air/grd force that knows how to work together & has a wider array of resources at our disposal than any comparable team. We need to be forward making use of that.

[desert rat]

How about ground team radiological monitoring.  this could be a big mission for us with the national security push.  We already have the ES rating for it as well.

Not to hard to train for.

[SarDragon]

Mr Dentist, let's try to keep this to one thread, please.

[brasda91]

just like slinging sandbags, is not a thing we should focus on.

I've filled sandbags in support of the Red Cross.  We were expecting some flooding and we were helping to be a head.  If there wasn't any victims in the "field" for a gt to search for and a shelter needed manning, my unit would help out.

[desert rat]

The biggest question is, Do we need cadets on ground teams?   For what real purpose will cadets serve on ground team missions?  Most places limit what youth can see, and they are not always available to task out.  Since cadets can't be mission pilots, scanners, or observers why are they allowed to be on ground team?  Why not open the scanner and observer jobs to them as well.

I like the cadets getting the ground team training because it is fun for them and simulates alot of the military field training that many seek.  Youth like to play Army and rough it in the field. For me I see ground team function as cadet training fun.  I don't see it so much as a mission based aspect.

We could easily roll UDF, ground radiological monitoring, and  flightline marshalling into the ground team member role.  Most of the same tasks are already done when training for ground team member.

[isuhawkeye]

um cadets can be on air crew.... if they are 18

[Tubacap]

We use cadets on Ground Teams all the time.  It's a force multiplier for sure, plus their training is just as good, sometimes better, than our senior officers.  True, when we finally make the find, there are definite restrictions and we luckily have a great debriefing procedure to go through, but they still make great contributions.

[sarmed1]

Pa is one of the more unique states that cadets play a huge role in the WSAR mission.  There are teams that are 90% cadet.  I havent seen it  lately, but WIWAC.....I remember seeing teams where a cadet was the team leader (and most experienced) and the senior along just to drive the van....

I certainly agree though that there needs to be a little thought put into cadet participation in ES.  Age is the easiest defining criterai to apply to a large number of personnel without having to take on each individual case by case sort of thing.
Basedon my experience both as a cadet and a senior; cadets on an operational ground team should be 16 or older (roping them in and trainnig them between 13-16 should be highly enbcouraged).  16 presents the advatage of maturity (yes I know I have seen immature 45 year olds) they have a likelyhood of be self transporting, plus adult sized expectations of physical ability in regards to lifting, endurance and attention spans

mk.

[RiverAux]

Actually, I think it is the norm that cadets make up a majority of ground team members. I think that ELT missions in the middle of the night are a bit more likely to be done by all-senior DF teams though. 

[Chris Jacobs]

I as a cadet go on almost any local ELT mission, and there is one other cadet south of me that is always on the team out of that unit.  but i would say that senior members make up most of the midnight teams.

[LTC_Gadget]

An additional thought regarding augmenting Red Cross efforts.. They have far greater public recognition than do we, at least in my part of the country (I grew up in the secret order of the CAP  ). Plus they are far better funded than are we. People give them millions even for specific disaster efforts. But no,  I'm not suggesting that throwing money at it solves the problem; just that those who suggest leaving traditionally RC missions to RC may have a point. So, don't we have to decide, at some point, possibly on a state-by-state basis, on what missions it is that we can make the most contribution for our limited resources, but sincere efforts, and maintain/increase competency on them?

[DNall]

I think the point the national organizaiton has been making as of late is that tehre should be exactly none of that state-by-state varriance, but rathr maximum standardization under a unified chain of command, that in fact the only reason we are divided along state lines is to account for varriables in state laws, but otherwise we are to be a national organization with national decision making, especially when it comes to missions & strategic priorities or vision.

[floridacyclist]

I see no problem with assisting RC on any of their missions even though I am not a huge fan of the ARC (ask me in PM if you want my true feelings); I just recognize that often they are the ticket to being allowed to play ball after a disaster.

I was even thinking that CAP could field damage assessment teams as sort of a RECON-lite since cadets (minors) are not allowed to serve on CAP RECON teams yet ARC allows them on damage assessment.

It wouldn't be totally out of line for us to put a SM as driver, with a navigator, MRO, logger, and 2 or more as assessors (observers) doing the RC-style of drive-by damage assessment.

We could also work comms; I have a question in with the national comm and legal staff as to whether we would be allowed to operate ham radios as part of our duties if we were assigned to assist W/ ARC since that is their primary method of comm.

[Earhart1971]

Was CAP left out of the high Visibility Boy Scout Search in North Carolina? Just wondering.

[IronRangerMN]

"The biggest question is, Do we need cadets on ground teams?   For what real purpose will cadets serve on ground team missions?  Most places limit what youth can see, and they are not always available to task out.  Since cadets can't be mission pilots, scanners, or observers why are they allowed to be on ground team?  Why not open the scanner and observer jobs to them as well.

I like the cadets getting the ground team training because it is fun for them and simulates alot of the military field training that many seek.  Youth like to play Army and rough it in the field. For me I see ground team function as cadet training fun.  I don't see it so much as a mission based aspect."

quote from desert rat

When i saw this i could not belive it. Cadets are all a ground team is, except for 1-3 seniors accompaning usually. You do need us, the cadets, sry to say desert rat.

It seems its more important to some people that the non-distress ELT's are found and not the missing person or body in the woods! Not only that but why push UDF or anything into GT??? Any good GT can do a DF'er as well as a UDF team. And why  should we scrap cadets as GT? Unlike many of the senior members, often cadets can get places in the wilderness and do things others could not do without having medical problems. Heck, I know also that untrained GT cadets can easily become problems. Thats why everyone needs to cut some of the AE from the cadets in there Squadrons and throw 'em out in the field. My squadron has a GT in place. We've got hundreds of hours of in-field training. And yes, this means in woods and swamp. We have even constructed a sweet, but not complete, obsticle course in the woods by our building. It will be a great thing to keep us well conditioned and agile. We do so much training that on a 4 day summer survival school, we saved a family stuck on a boat for 24-48 hours, with a baby i will add. For details pm me.

and DNall,

i like the points u make. One thing u said earlier about CAP providing money and gear for more advanced training. One reason we train more than any other squadron in MN is money does not seem to be required wen we train. We get into the thick woods and swamps of northern MN. We just walk or drive in POV's out to our training sites and we're off.

Another thing, we provide any squadron member with neccessary gear needed. At the moment we got like 30 LBE's set up and parts for mannnny more. (load bearing equipment) with pistol belts, y suspenders, 2 canteens with pouches, 2 m16 ammo pouches, compass pouch and ranger beads. We also issue 1 summer set of BDU's, 1 winter weight set, boots if we got the size, and gortex coats. We used to issue m-65 field jackets before we got like 40 gortex jackets. We got lots of current military issue ponchos, like 4 new litters, like 30 newish camo ALICE packs that r good to go. And we recently got a bouch of new military molle rucks with frame and suspenders. We also got many military artic sleeping bags, poncho liners, snow shoes, the list goes on. If the situation ever presented itself, we could supply like 200 guys with BDU's and 60+ guys with complete ground team stuff, not counting survival gear items. The team we got now is about 6 or more right now because 1 guy is in vegas for a job and another is at basic for the Guard right now.

Gear and money is no problem if your squadron is self-sufficient and knows how to do it without great cost etc, which sadly, most squadrons are not this squared away. At least I wish other cadet GT people would square away there field gear.

and all this gear does no good if everyone doesnt seem to be proffesional searchers with only the mission in mind. Its a steryotyping world we live in.