NASAR

[Larry Mangum]

Has anyone tried integrating NASAR training into their wings Ground Team syllabus?

[sarmed1]

Yes it works fairly well.  The most complicated part is finding a NASAR instructor to come and test your folks (and the cost of the instructor).  The question is: Is it worth it.  There isnt really much differance in the trainig between SARTECH II and GTM 1, other than a little more ropes and knots on the NASAR side and the ELT plane stuff on the CAP side.
The biggest benifit I have found is that if you are workng with regular civilian SAR or Fire/EMS types is they know what you are talking about at first glance if you tell them you are a SARTECH II rather than a GTM 3-1, GBD etc etc, and have a tendency to treat you more like a SAR proffesional than a buch of  old guys and young kids playing GI Joe offering to lend a hand.

MK

[isuhawkeye]

iowa put 4 staff through SAR Tech II last spring

[CadetProgramGuy]

And we passed.

[DNall]

SARTECH II is one of the listed requirements for NIMS WSAR, which is almost certainly what we'll be moving to over the next couple years.

In general though, it is helpful at times to close the communications gap when the other folks on the ground don't know what CAP is or what you're capable of. Kind of like a Seal calling for artillery fire doesn't have to repeat himself so much if he says he's bwwn to ranger school.

[isuhawkeye]

bump...

NASAR is releasing the new MLPI (Managing the lost person incident) this summer. 

Does anyone have any experience with this program.

CAP doesnt have much in the way of training Planners how to plan.   

[Al Sayre]

The 5 day AFRCC SAR Planning course is an excellent class, and includes both ground search and air search planning exercises.

[isuhawkeye]

I am familiar with thei Inland SAR Planners course.  I have heard that it is an excellent program.  I have halso heard that it is very theory based, and is heavy on aircraft and marine SAR with the amount of math associated with the program. 

Do you have any experience iwth NASAR's MLPI course?

[Al Sayre]

No, I haven't, but I'd like to take it if the opportunity presents.  Don't let the math scare you from taking the planning course.  It's high school algebra level stuff.  They also provide you with an Excel spreadsheet that will do a lot of it for you.

[sardak]

I am familiar with the Inland SAR Planners course.  I have heard that it is an excellent program.  I have also heard that it is very theory based, and is heavy on aircraft and marine SAR with the amount of math associated with the program.

I took the Inland SAR Planner course in 1991 and 2001.  There was no marine SAR at all in either class.  However, the Coast Guard has developed a great deal of SAR theory and technique which transfer over to land and aeronautical SAR.

There is math, but as Al said, don't worry about it.  The math is required to understand POA, POD, consensus, sweep width, etc.  Some students struggle with it, but there are plenty of others in the class to help them with it.  As for real life searches, there should (needs to) be staff capable of doing it, because it's not that difficult.

All SAR management classes include lots of theory and math.  You will get these in MLPI and MLSO (Managing Land Search Operations), too.

Do you have any experience with NASAR's MLPI course?

It is a good class.  MLSO is an equivalent class.   In fact, what you'll find is that the same people are/were involved in the development of most  SAR management classes in the US.   MLPI and MLSO are evolutions of  "Managing Search Operations" (MSO) and "Managing the Search Function" (MSF).  I forget which came first, but the original class was  developed by the National Park Service.  Even the Inland SAR Planner course has evolved based on input from these people.

MLPI and MLSO are in essence competing courses that offer the exact same material.  They exist because of differences in opinion and philosophy among the aforementioned group of people.  There are also some copyright issues.

Think of MLPI as a SAR course offered by Microsoft and MLSO as one offered open source.  MLPI must be taught by NASAR certified instructors, all students have to pay a fee to NASAR, the material cannot be modified and the course must be taught as is. http://www.nasar.org/nasar/course.php

MLSO can be presented as a pre-packaged course just as MLPI is, but without the NASAR requirements. Or it can be modified locally.  The course comes with far more Powerpoint slides than can be taught.  You can pick and choose among options.  You can add material and modify (up to a point) the given materials.  The class can be sequenced to fit the needs of the students. http://www.eri-online.com/Managing_Land_Search_Operat.php

A couple of  years ago, the Colorado SAR Board (CSRB, of which I'm one of the directors) decided to make MLSO the course it would offer because the course could be modified.  We now have a canned MLSO package, with Colorado specific mods, and certified instructors.  MLPI is still offered by CSRB for those teams that want it, and because MLPI instructors have to teach a certain number of classes to keep their NASAR certification.

This year's Colorado SAR Management Academy (http://www.cosarma.com/) is offering MLPI instead of MLSO, because  we're offering other NASAR management courses, but the decision was not unanimous.  Just for reference, and as a shameless plug, CSRB now presents in alternate years a SAR management academy and a general SAR conference.

To climb on my soapbox for a moment- CAP participation at both types of "academy" has been dismal.  I'm glad to see the interest in Iowa.  Now back to the thread.

Mike

[isuhawkeye]

ah a breath of faresh air.  thank you so much for your understanding of these programs, and your input. 

[Fifinella]

This year's Colorado SAR Management Academy (http://www.cosarma.com/) is offering MLPI instead of MLSO, because  we're offering other NASAR management courses, but the decision was not unanimous.  Just for reference, and as a shameless plug, CSRB now presents in alternate years a SAR management academy and a general SAR conference.

To climb on my soapbox for a moment- CAP participation at both types of "academy" has been dismal.  I'm glad to see the interest in Iowa.  Now back to the thread.

Mike

I'd love to come, but this is the first I've ever heard of it, and I'll be at NGSAR during those dates.  Please give us a head's up for next year, ok?  Thx.

[CadetProgramGuy]

I understand the need for NASAR training, however to what level do we prepare?  SARTECH II or I?

In Iowa 4 officers qualified as SARTECH II's, should we take it another step or should we now concentrate on training the rest of our members to qualify as SARTECH II's?

This would be an advanced course on top of an already ES Heavy training curricilum (sp?).

[isuhawkeye]

considering the fact that the closest place to get sartech I is in arkansas. I would like to see the expansion of the STRTECH II standard

[CadetProgramGuy]

considering the fact that the closest place to get sartech I is in arkansas. I would like to see the expansion of the STRTECH II standard

I agree with you!!  I believe SARTECH II training is invaluable.  I know I learned alot from my training and certification.

[Hawk200]

This would be an advanced course on top of an already ES Heavy training curricilum (sp?).

If we wanted to make it easier, we could identify the common material between CAP Ground Team, and the SAR TECH II (or even I) standard. Then for our GT qual, just state ST as a starter, and specify the unique CAP material after that. Would save time, and streamline our training.

The biggest question would be how much of the material in the ST program we need. Would probably be easier to just learn it anyway, and then add-on the CAP stuff.

[isuhawkeye]

bump

well this years NASAR conference is over.  did anyone attend, and if so what valuable information can you share from the SAR world.

[sardak]

A NASAR report:

1. The new MLPI book is out.  I only glanced at it to see if my name was in it (yes), because I supposedly have a copy somewhere in the mail.   Otherwise, I would have bought a copy at the conference.

2. A five minute preview of the new Hug-a-Tree video was shown.  The video was produced for NASAR for free by the Walt Disney Company, so it is obviously well done.  The slide show (35mm, not PowerPoint) it replaces is over 20 years old.

3. NASAR is continuing on its strategic plan presented last year.  They are behind on a number of milestones but all are in work.

4.  For the first time in several years there were no major issues or controversies to disrupt the conference.  The one potential big issue that some had prepared for came and went with barely a whimper.

I represented Colorado again this year at the state SAR coordinators meeting, held the day before the NASAR conference.  17 states were represented, which is the highest turnout in the seven years since this meeting was revived.  Representatives from AFRCC, Coast Guard SAR office, NOAA Sarsat office, National SAR Committee, National Park Service, FEMA and CAP NHQ attend so that the state SAR coordinators can ask the feds questions and bring up issues.  A representative from Canada's National SAR Secretariat also attends.  The meeting is sponsored by EMS Technologies which is the company that provides the software used in the controller terminals at the RCCs.  NASAR hosts the meeting because NASAR was originally NASARC - the National Association of Search and Rescue Coordinators.

One attendee blurs the line between the feds and civilians.  PROCON is a private company that has contracted with the Air Force to be a sub-RCC to AFRCC.  PROCON sells PLBs which are coded as belonging to PROCON, not the purchaser.  PROCON PLB alerts go directly to PROCON, but since it is a sub-RCC to AFRCC, AFRCC knows when PROCON is working a PLB alert.  PROCON has proposed to handle all PLB alerts, not just its own.  The commander of AFRCC, Ltc. Jed Hudson, queried the SAR coordinators at the meeting about their opinions on this.  Of those who responded (not all 17 reps are responsible for PLBs), all were hesitant to buy into this plan.  More to follow.

NOAA provided updates on beacons and Sarsat.  As for the 121.5 phaseout, unless some big-time politician goes down in a plane without a 406 beacon, 121.5 monitoring will cease in 2009.  NOAA is counting it in days, not years now, and as of the meeting, shut-down was in 613 days.  The National SAR Secretariat rep pointed out that the "on/off" switch is located in Canada.

Now the fun stuff.

The National SAR Plan (NSP) has been rewritten and is out for signature to the 7 responsible federal agencies (DHS, DOC, DOD, DOI, DOT, FCC, NASA).  The rewrite is the answer to an action item from the "White House Report on Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned" to better integrate the NSP into the National Response Plan (NRP).

The new NSP and another Katrina action item drove a rewrite of the National SAR Supplement (NSS), which is still in work.  SAR is now by definition broken down into four general categories: Aeronautical, Land, Maritime and Urban.  Urban is collapsed structure SAR.  No one likes the term USAR, but it's too late for even the feds to try to force a change to the term and its common usage. 

The NSS will include a model SAR plan for states, a chapter on what the states can expect from the feds in a SAR incident, how/when Emergency Support Function 9 (ESF-9, SAR) within the NRP is implemented, and making it clear that ESF-9 can be used for all SAR, not just "incidents of national significance", USAR and federal SAR.  Some states, such as California and Colorado, have already included other types of SAR in ESF-9 in their state plans.  The agencies writing the implementation of ESF-9 are USAF (aeronautical), National Park Service (land), USCG (maritime) and FEMA (urban).

A new grid system is included in the NSS which will replace the CAP grid system(s).  The new standard grid is the Global Area Reference System (GARS).  It was developed by the National Geo-Spatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) and replaces the Common Grid Reference System developed during OIF.  The Secretary of Defense issued a policy making GARS the standard system for all military ops.  The AFRCC commander told the SAR coordinators about the system and was thoroughly thrashed by them.  He did a poor job of explaining it and didn't think to say that it has been dictated by SECDEF.  Here is a starting point to learn more about GARS:
http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/coordsys/grids/gars.html

A couple of advantages GARS has over the CAP system is that it's based on lat/lon independent of sectionals and like UTM, grids are labeled sequentially right and up from a starting point, numbers increase going east and letters increase going north.  It is not a coordinate system as the smallest grid defined by the system is 5 minutes x 5 minutes.  MGRS remains the standard point coordinate system for military ground ops, USNG for civilian ops and lat/lon for all aviation.

As an example, CAP grid CYS565 becomes 153LW3 in GARS.  While that probably doesn't look any better, once familiar with GARS, the lat/lon of a corner of that grid can be calculated with simple math and no other references.  The next subdivision in CAP is A, B, C, D for the quarter grids, but in GARS they are in "keypad" format 1 through 9.

NIMS SAR credentialing, a topic in several CAPTalk threads, is being rewritten.  A group of real, day-to-day SAR personnel have been working on the credentialing document.  This group has also been authorized to review the NIMS SAR resource typing, but credentialing is the first priority. The baseline document for land SAR is ASTM standard F2209 which defines the minimum requirements to be a land search team member.  It is, in simple terms, the search requirements of NASAR SARTECH written in generic format, so F2209 is in part, the "parent" document of SARTECH. 

The ASTM F32 SAR standards committee met in all-day session the last day of the NASAR conference.  I'm the chairman of the ASTM F32.02 subcommittee on SAR operations and management.  Three new draft standards were reviewed in the subcommittee, the next level of searcher higher than that defined in F2209, and the two lowest levels of land rescue technician. 

The last item to report is that the beer in the hospitality suite was cold.

Mike

[isuhawkeye]

thanks mike. Great report.  I wish I could have goten the time off of work!

[Hoser]

Having taken the Inland SAR Planning Course, it is very theoretical and there is a degree of math in it. There is no maritime SAR at all, that is the Coast Guard's bailiwick. There is air and ground search planning, and both are treated mathematically. The math is for the calculation of POS, PrS, and arriving at consensus for determining likely scenarios, ergo where to search first. This is because it gives a basis for where to start looking, but more importantly it provides the numbers, statistical analysis that drove your decisions in case of litigation.

Hoser