Emergency Service MOU Expansion

[SARDOC]

I'm just curious to see what this really means for the future of Civil Air Patrol Emergency Services.  Any Thoughts?

http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?cap_forges_ties_with_national_emergency_services_organizations&show=news&newsID=17642

[Eclipse]

Full text here: 

NASAR: http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/NHQ_NATLASSNFORSARINC_2013_1D09553D931C3.pdf
IAEM: http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/NHQ_MOA_INTLASSNOFEMERGENCYMANAGERS_550DBB6A1DDB5.pdf

There has been an agreement with similar language in place win NASAR since at least 2003.
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/NASARNatl_Assn_of_Search__Rescue_LO_9C091B0DA23D2.pdf

Being a less contentious partner in the ES community isn't a bad thing, but won't likely get us any missions we
wouldn't' otherwise have gotten.  For the most part the major tenants of the MOAs are what ESOs are already supposed to
be doing as a normal course of business.

[cap235629]

My personal opinion is we need to drop our ground team curriculum all together and adopt NASAR SARTECH ratings while leaving in place the UDF rating........

[SARDOC]

Thanks Eclipse for posting the links to both MOU's.  After reading them, I'm not really impressed, I wish it would have outlined expectations a little more.

NASAR seems to have a good program but I know it's not recognized in my state.  In order to be called out on a ground mission for the State (Read: Not AFRCC) missions you have to be certified through the state program.  They don't accept any reciprocity and they don't allow anybody under 18 years old.

I don't even see any NASAR classes anywhere even close to us.

[Eclipse]

My personal opinion is we need to drop our ground team curriculum all together and adopt NASAR SARTECH ratings while leaving in place the UDF rating........

I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but that won't in and of itself change anything mission-wise, since the impediments to
our participation would stil be the same (federalized, politics, etc., etc.).

Who does the certification?  CAP internally or NASAR?  Cause if its NASAR, that's going to add a couple hundred buckos to being a GTM, which means
we lose a lot of people the first round, not to mention annual memberships, recurrent training, etc.

A better course would be to allow CAP to internally certify at no cost (perhaps a rating that equals the SARTECH levels but is only valid within CAP while a member),
or to simply draw lines between GTM and SARTECH and move on.

[Eclipse]

Thanks Eclipse for posting the links to both MOU's.  After reading them, I'm not really impressed, I wish it would have outlined expectations a little more.

NASAR seems to have a good program but I know it's not recognized in my state.  In order to be called out on a ground mission for the State (Read: Not AFRCC) missions you have to be certified through the state program.  They don't accept any reciprocity and they don't allow anybody under 18 years old.

I don't even see any NASAR classes anywhere even close to us.

NASAR is really for people who don't belong to some other structured organizations to give them some credibility of training.  It's just one more
voice in the room.  Our members see people with NASAR ratings going on mission and other activities and make the assumption and connection
that it's that rating that gets them in the door, which is far from the case.

In my short 14 years, I've heard a lot of reasons why CAP isn't called by various agencies and potential customers and NASAR, or the lack there of
has never been mentioned.  Most of the issue are related to our pseudo-governmental / federal status, or politics in preferring to call smaller, more local adhoc groups
which would be under the direct control of the requester (yeah I know, so would we, etc.).

If NASAR membership and/or SARTECH was the only thing, or a major thing holding us back from being called, I'd have been digging for grants years ago,
but the reality is that most local agencies don't have or understand planes, but they think they have Ground SAR knocked, so they call us for planes,
and nothing else.

Your state's requirement to be qualified to their own standard is all too typical of the issues we face.

What we really need is people at the national and federal level getting us in the playbooks with 3- and 4-letter agencies in ways that befit our national standing
and Congressional funding (and we need to perform at that level).  I have personally been involved with missions where 4-letter agencies directly requested
our assistance and yet we still had to perform the missions at a self-funded C-level because the NOC could not get USAF approval for the funding and no
process was in place with these agencies.

[sardak]

Who does the certification?  CAP internally or NASAR?  Cause if its NASAR, that's going to add a couple hundred buckos to being a GTM

How do you figure that since the SARTECH II certification fee is $30? One doesn't have to take a NASAR class or buy a NASAR book to take the test. The written test questions aren't posted, but the written test topics and the skills test information are here: http://www.nasar.org/files/education/SARTECH_III_II_Criteria_02_2003.pdf

A better course would be to allow CAP to internally certify at no cost (perhaps a rating that equals the SARTECH levels but is only valid within CAP while a member)

The no-cost option is highly unlikely but the second part is attainable today, and has been for some time. CAP just has to click its ruby slippers together and say "I want it to happen, I want..."

NASAR is really for people who don't belong to some other structured organizations to give them some credibility of training.

Simply being a member of NASAR is meaningless. It's the certification that counts, and one doesn't need to be a member of NASAR to be SARTECH certified.

Our members see people with NASAR ratings going on mission and other activities and make the assumption and connection
that it's that rating that gets them in the door, which is far from the case.

Then what part of NASAR is it that gets them in the door?  Again, being a member of NASAR is no different then being a member of the local Kiwanis Club. If the AHJs in your area think differently, then that's a local problem.

I've heard a lot of reasons why CAP isn't called by various agencies and potential customers and NASAR

Not sure how NASAR fits into that sentence since NASAR isn't a response organization.

CAP has tried in the past to get NASAR certification for free or on the cheap, and it didn't pan out. Since NASAR this past year cut their certification fees basically in half, I don't think they'll cut them just for CAP. Nothing happened under the old MOU and the president of NASAR who just signed this MOU has only a year left as president. I think it's possible in the next year for an actual working relationship to develop between the organizations. However, CAP has to take a realistic approach to negotiations and not go in like some downtrodden child with a chip on its shoulder, which is how the organization comes across to a whole lot of other organizations.

BTW, NASAR has begun a search for a new Executive Director. Details are on the NASAR website.

Mike

[Walkman]

While this doesn't suddenly open up doors to a ton of new missions, any effort to strengthen our relationships with the other EMAs is a good thing. One step at a time, right?

[SARDOC]

^ I agree.  Relationships are always helpful.  I would like to see us be open to more Emergency Management training as a result of our partnership with IAEM.

[Eclipse]

However, CAP has to take a realistic approach to negotiations and not go in like some downtrodden child with a chip on its shoulder, which is how the organization comes across to a whole lot of other organizations.

We come across that way because we are the "Federales" - big iron resources and membership, and are viewed as a risk to the small, adhoc teams a resources
we compete with, and frankly with good cause - when we show up with the varsity team and fire on all cylinders, we're a pretty cost effective, mission-capable resource.

As to the other points, I think we're mostly in agreement.  My point was that we have members who view adhoc teams getting missions
and wonder what they are doing we aren't, "Well, it must be the SARTECH." It's not.

As to the cost.  SARTECH II is close, but it doesn't align directly with GTM.  I tried to get a handle on the actual cost to get certified at the highest level and
frankly got distracted by a penny on the floor.  The are practical as well as online tests and those aren't free, either.

Bottom line a NASAR rating might make some conversations over coffee more pleasant, but it doesn't change our place in the national framework, which is what I think you are saying as well.

[Eclipse]

^ I agree.  Relationships are always helpful.  I would like to see us be open to more Emergency Management training as a result of our partnership with IAEM.

What opens up that we can't already do?

[cap235629]

SARTECH II is close, but it doesn't align directly with GTM.

You have that a bit backward, GTM is CLOSE but is not as indepth as SARTECH II.

I hold both certifications and SARTECH II was much more involved and harder that any of our GTM levels and I am a GTL/GTM1.

Another plus is that if CAP does not self certify, all SARTECH evaluations are done by an outside evaluator.... NO MORE PENCIL WHIPPING......

[Eclipse]

Another plus is that if CAP does not self certify, all SARTECH evaluations are done by an outside evaluator.... NO MORE PENCIL WHIPPING......

So CAP is dishonest and NASAR is above scrutiny?

I know you didn't say or mean that, but that's how it comes across, that just because "some other guy" evaluates a member that's inherently "better".

I'd say the SARTECH evals look potentially more comprehensive, but no more then NESA or people who take the GTM curriculum seriously.  There's only so many
different ways you can skin this cat.

[Eclipse]

If someone can decipher their website to determine the real cost to get to all of their ratings, that would help this discussion as well.

[RiverAux]

The reason we don't get called for more GSAR missions has absolutely nothing to do with our training.  We could up our training standards and get our folks certified to do the hardest of hard-core missions but it wouldn't make the phone ring one more time than it does now.  Drop our GTM handbook on the desk of most local emergency managers and they're going to be satisfied with it.

The fact that we're not meeting with the local emergency managers to show them the manual is why we don't get called.  Educating them that we actually have a GSAR capability is the biggest problem in this program. 

[Eclipse]

^ Yup.

[SARDOC]

^ I agree.  Relationships are always helpful.  I would like to see us be open to more Emergency Management training as a result of our partnership with IAEM.

What opens up that we can't already do?

IAEM does a lot of training all around the Country...But for example they have a culture in their organization that training is for Emergency Management "Professionals" meaning career Emergency Manager, coordinators and planners.  Volunteer Members of Organizations like the Civil Air Patrol typically can't attend or get professional certifications.  I'm hoping with this "Partnership" that will change.

[cap235629]

^ I agree.  Relationships are always helpful.  I would like to see us be open to more Emergency Management training as a result of our partnership with IAEM.

What opens up that we can't already do?

IAEM does a lot of training all around the Country...But for example they have a culture in their organization that training is for Emergency Management "Professionals" meaning career Emergency Manager, coordinators and planners.  Volunteer Members of Organizations like the Civil Air Patrol typically can't attend or get professional certifications.  I'm hoping with this "Partnership" that will change.

That's funny, I just submitted my packet for AEM and will sit for the exam sometime in the spring and the only affiliation I carry with any organization is CAP.  Never even questioned by IAEM

[SARDOC]

^ I agree.  Relationships are always helpful.  I would like to see us be open to more Emergency Management training as a result of our partnership with IAEM.

What opens up that we can't already do?

IAEM does a lot of training all around the Country...But for example they have a culture in their organization that training is for Emergency Management "Professionals" meaning career Emergency Manager, coordinators and planners.  Volunteer Members of Organizations like the Civil Air Patrol typically can't attend or get professional certifications.  I'm hoping with this "Partnership" that will change.

That's funny, I just submitted my packet for AEM and will sit for the exam sometime in the spring and the only affiliation I carry with any organization is CAP.  Never even questioned by IAEM

How long ago has that been.  I tried for AEM about three years ago and they didn't recognize my Civil Air Patrol service at all and didn't recognize me for my Fire Service/EMS because it wasn't specifically Emergency Management.

[sarmed1]

The way it has been explained to me is that the course fees beyond the NASAR fee ($30) are up to the individual instructors and evaluators.  They charge what they want to cover their time for either teaching an entire course (but not required to test, as mentioned above) or just for setting up the tests.  Hypothetically if there were CAP members who were NASAR evaluators, they could do it for free, except for the NASAR required fee.

Getting there seems be the complicated part....and may end up costly, but maybe thats where the MOU maybe handy.


mk

[cap235629]

packet was sent in last month

[sardak]

If someone can decipher their website to determine the real cost to get to all of their ratings, that would help this discussion as well.

The way it has been explained to me is that the course fees beyond the NASAR fee ($30) are up to the individual instructors and evaluators. They charge what they want to cover their time for either teaching an entire course (but not required to test, as mentioned above) or just for setting up the tests. 

Correct, except that it's any cost beyond the course fee ($30) AND/OR the certification fee ($30). However, one doesn't have to take the course to take the certification exam. So one can become a SARTECH III and SARTECH II for a total of $30 (certification fee), because the written exam for SARTECH II covers the material in SARTECH III. The cert fee covers one retest taken within one year.

SARTECH I covers technical skills that aren't part of CAP ground team/leader ratings, so there isn't really a reason for a CAP member to get it. I don't think you're interested in getting all the dog handler certs, but there is Planning Section Chief class/cert and a tracking course. The same fee schedule applies to all of them.

Hypothetically If there were CAP members [or non-CAP members] who were NASAR evaluators, they could do it for free, except for the NASAR required fee.

Correct.

Getting there seems be the complicated part....and may end up costly, but maybe thats where the MOU may be handy.

Not sure where the complications and cost come from, other than finding an instructor who won't charge unreasonable fees, but agreements that come as a result of the MOU may indeed help.

The $30 is the NASAR member rate, the non-member rate is $65. An individual membership is $54/yr but an organizational membership is $165/yr which allows up to 29 members of the organization to get classes and exams at the member rate. A squadron can get an organizational membership. Perhaps the MOU will deal with this, too.

But it has been repeated over and over that the real problem is that units aren't getting the word out that CAP has ground teams. So why is this not being done? Why are members once again discussing all this NASAR hassle which isn't going to get them more business? Why worry about an MOU that might not do anything?

Mike

[Ed Bos]

SARTECH II is close, but it doesn't align directly with GTM.

You have that a bit backward, GTM is CLOSE but is not as indepth as SARTECH II.

I hold both certifications and SARTECH II was much more involved and harder that any of our GTM levels and I am a GTL/GTM1.

Another plus is that if CAP does not self certify, all SARTECH evaluations are done by an outside evaluator.... NO MORE PENCIL WHIPPING......

One other consideration is that SARTECH is a one-time evaluation. GTM/GTL requires requalification and continuing education. More food for thought.

[sardak]

SARTECH recert was approved this summer:

Subject: Recertification - Fee structure will go into effect Jan 1 2016
Fee Structure:
SARTECH III: Every 3 years, recertify by retesting for $15 OR 12 hours of CE class training or documented field experience.

SARTECH II: Every 3 years, recertify by retesting written and field stations OR 30 hours of CE class training. Field experience will count 50 %. Teaching will count 2 hours for 1.

SARTECH I: Every 3 years, recertify by retesting written field stations OR 60 hours of CE class training. Field experience will count 50 %. Teaching will count 2 hours for 1.

Program details will be posted by Oct 1 2013. (NOT  This is from the board minutes.)

Mike

[RiverAux]

But it has been repeated over and over that the real problem is that units aren't getting the word out that CAP has ground teams. So why is this not being done?

Because GSAR and getting GSAR missions is not a priority at any level of CAP. 

[SARDOC]

But it has been repeated over and over that the real problem is that units aren't getting the word out that CAP has ground teams. So why is this not being done?

Because GSAR and getting GSAR missions is not a priority at any level of CAP.

I know it's a high priority for our wing, the issue we have is that a high percentage of GSAR's are for despondent's who don't necessarily want to be found...making this more of an LE function and the Posse Comitatus rule comes into play.  Other SAR organizations respond to the state requests for those all the time however our Auxiliary status prevents it.

[RiverAux]

While I've often said here that GSAR is the biggest potential growth area for CAP ES activity, in most places that won't mean getting missions on a weekly or even monthly basis.  A while back I did a fairly detailed analysis of GSAR cases in my state using data obtained from the state EMA and newspaper accounts of searches. 

Probably 80-90% of the GSAR incidents were ones in which CAP involvement probably wouldn't have happened -- primarily because the subject was found within an hour or two and in general we wouldn't have a team together that fast (except in our home towns).  The other reason was those GSARs that were related to despondents.

Even accounting for that, I figured that if our Wing built up our GSAR capability and developed the proper relationships that it would result in 5-10 honest-to-goodness GSAR missions every year, compared to the 1 or 2 missing airplane searches we get.  At the time, there was no interest in pursuing this. 

[Ed Bos]

SARTECH recert was approved this summer:

Subject: Recertification - Fee structure will go into effect Jan 1 2016
Fee Structure:
SARTECH III: Every 3 years, recertify by retesting for $15 OR 12 hours of CE class training or documented field experience.

SARTECH II: Every 3 years, recertify by retesting written and field stations OR 30 hours of CE class training. Field experience will count 50 %. Teaching will count 2 hours for 1.

SARTECH I: Every 3 years, recertify by retesting written field stations OR 60 hours of CE class training. Field experience will count 50 %. Teaching will count 2 hours for 1.

Program details will be posted by Oct 1 2013. (NOT  This is from the board minutes.)

Mike

Excellent info, thanks for that!

[BFreemanMA]

This is admittedly a bit of a tangent, but there are use for Ground Teams outside of SAR.

For example, in MAWG, we've begun using Ground Teams as "Forward Air Control Parties" for disaster relief ops. We deploy a team to a location to take ground-based photos. The ground team then directs the aircraft to the area to take a birds-eye view of the scene. The pictures are transferred via wireless LAN-type service from air to ground and sent to our customer. If the customer needs a closer look at something, the ground team can direct the aircraft to another location or vice-versa.

We gave it a shot during our last SAREX. There were a few snags, but we accomplished the mission overall. I was the MRO for the operation and it was really neat to hear the coordination between all the elements.

I know that MAWG doesn't get a lot of GSAR missions at all due to the State Police having that market cornered, so I pleased to hear about this evolution in the wing which keeps us useful to our local EMA.

Maybe this is something other wings could look in to so their GSAR skills don't atrophy?

[Eclipse]

Ground assessment photos and recon have been included as tasks in the last two CAP-USAR evaluated exercises / GTEs in my wing.

[SARDOC]

Ground assessment photos and recon have been included as tasks in the last two CAP-USAR evaluated exercises / GTEs in my wing.

That's true here too.  While I know there are other tasks for ground teams, they are usually much more infrequent than the GSAR.  So the CAP GTM tasks are still the building blocks for building a team that would be capable of performing those other tasks.

[BFreemanMA]

They definitely should keep the GTM tasks intact, for sure. I was just offering an "outside the box" possibility for Wings where GSAR missions are few and far between. My experience is that, unfortunately, there are NO GSAR missions at all for us. Sadface.jpg