Recruiting senior members for GSAR

[RiverAux]

I think that assisting local authorities in ground search and rescue for lost persons is the one area with a great potential for growth in CAP ES missions, but for a variety of organizational reasons, we haven't really done anything about it.  However, should a squadron, group, or wing, really want to get into it, they could.  However, there are some things they have to deal with first, and the most difficult is being able to field a large group of trained personnel on a consistent basis.  The county sheriff will expect us to bring more than a handful of folks if we are to be a credible part of his arsenal. 

However, the most difficult recruiting challenge I have seen in CAP is bringing in members that are specifically interested in doing ground search and rescue work.
Why is that? 

One issue is that CAP has a great deal of difficulty in recruiting seniors under 40, which are generally probably going to be your go-to guys for ground SAR work.  Yes, I know older folks can often be in better physical shape, yada, yada, yada, but they've never comprised the heart of any CAP ground team I've seen sent to the field for real hard-core training or missions.  So, for now, lets assume that this is the core group we're going after for GSAR.  We've often discussed why its hard to recruit younger members, so no need to dwell on those reasons. 

I think the other thing that makes it difficult to bring in seniors to do GSAR is the extremely close linkage between the cadet program and GSAR.  Basically, in CAP if you want to do GSAR you're directed towards working with the cadet program because senior programs, as a general rule, spend little or no time on GSAR topics.  So, the GSAR training is usually only done during cadet meetings, cadet FTXs, or SAREXs where the ground teams are mostly cadets. 

I think that the cadet dominance of the ground team program puts a bit of a stigma on it that may keep a lot of adults from joining up.  They may be very interested in doing GSAR, but have no interest at all in working with the cadet program and theres nothing at all wrong with that.   

I've really tried to think of ways around this, but haven't come up with much.  The best I've got is for each group or Wing to develop a group or Wing level super ground team made up of senior members that would conduct regular GSAR training.  This would develop a strong core of GSAR folks that will be very familiar with working with each other and that will probably be around for a while.  Again, not to get too sidetracked, but the majority of the cadets you train for GSAR work leave just about when they get to be useful. 

I think if you had a strong, adult oriented GSAR training program it would be a lot easier both to sell the program to sheriffs as well as to potential recruits who are not interested in working with cadets. 

And this would actually probably strengthen our cadet GSAR program as well since the seniors teaching them would have a lot more opportunity to use and improve their own skills as part of the adult GSAR training program, making them better able to teach cadets. 

Anyone have some better ideas on how to bring more adults in to do GSAR?   

[LittleIronPilot]

RiverAux....the "super SAR" Senior thing is ongoing in my Wing.

It seems to be sorta-working. However there are people that feel it is "special" or "elite" and that the training dollars are better spent training everyone (though to your point, the VAST majority of GSAR we have are cadets).

There was some vertical rescue training offered, but only to the super-SAR team and boy did that create a firestorm. I understood their logic, this type of training in unique and they wanted people to be AVAILABLE to go when needed, not just a bunch of people signing up because the training is "cool".

BTW...you are gonna get hammered for suggesting that we do GSAR without cadets (I agree BTW).

[Eclipse]

Its not a matter of "suggesting" it, its the reality.

This is another case where local perception is assumed to be national reality.  Its not.

Cadets are involved in GSAR in my area, but their is no assumption that GSAR is a "cadet thing" or requires working with cadets.

Sometimes they are there, sometimes they aren't.  They are members just like everyone else, and its part of the deal.

I have 10 people right now prepping for hurricane relief operations, all GSAR, no cadets.

The reason we have issues getting seniors involved in GSAR is that the expectation and opportunity to participate are not made clear during recruiting.  We setup the booth next to the plane on an open house ramp and tell them to come and "fly for free" - avoiding any discussions about real work, staff duties, or ground operations, because we don't want to scare them away, then we're surprised when new members push back with "that's not what I signed up for".

The minimum expectation for aircrew, pilots included, should be that they are UDF qualified so that they understand what the ground guys are going through, and in a lot of cases they can fly to an airport with
a DF unit and prosecute a search in stead of just orbiting the airfield or sitting on the ramp.

[RADIOMAN015]

 Vast majority of senior members have NO interest in ground search team operations.  Recruiting is based upon flying -- everyone wants to fly!!!  I have problems just trying to get mission radio operators for mission base operations.  When you add all the equipment necessary for GSAR deployment, added risk with cadets etc, it's an upward hill battle.  Perhaps the UDF team aspect might get some interest from the radio technical side (and some of the senior pilots/operations officers have recommended to the new pilots that it's a good idea to get the UDF training because weather may prevent flying).
BTW I salute any/all senior members that are willing to spend the time/effort in working with the cadets on the ground team training.  I'm always willing to help our new squadron ES officer with the radio comm aspect of the training.   Unfortunately, again, I think you will find that it's very difficult to find senior members to staff the ground teams & this minimum senior staffing affects the amount/type of training you can do, since you really need two senior members with the cadets during field (woods) type operations.     

[DNall]

I'm much less comfortable with the GSAR missing person search. That can turn into "hey, dead girl/crime scene" or here we are in the field & reports might be kidnapping... gets hairy real quick & outside the bounds of anything we can or should be involved in - and that's a good thing.

That said, I'm highly in favor of many more adults for GSAR. We know already we're going to face mission situations where we can only use 18+ members. And for practical purposes, I really have a problem putting a GT with cadets on a primary grid where I just about know there's a downed aircraft. I have a bigger problem getting that site searched when it's going to involve line search in the weeds & I don't want to use cadets for that. I've faced that real-world situation a few times, and I hate it big time!!

My best suggestion organizationally would be... min ages for the ratings. Something like, 12 for UDF, 14 for GTM3, 16 for GMT2, 18 for GTM1. Then add a section to the GT sortie ORM worksheet that requires evaluating the GT level for the sortie. Obviously, likely distress find being a GTM1 sortie. Something like that also makes it real simple to identify and deploy resources for bigger missions. It's kind of like FEMA resource typing, but more specific within our lane. I really really really think that's a policy we should absolutely pursue. It doesn't make any sense that we have a min age for MS/MO & not for the GT side. While we're at it, FLM should be at least 14 also.

I think something like that would really boost the program on the cadet side also. It paces them thru the training so they don't burn thru it & get bored. It gives them phased goals. I wouldn't mind seeing min grade requirements for each of those levels on the cadet side also. Yep, more I think about it, the more I think this would be an excellent policy to look into. What's yall's take?

[cap235629]

we have the opposite problem in our squadron, only 1 GTM qualified cadet.  We have 2 full teams, all seniors, wish they would come out for more sarex's but they are always there when it comes to real missions.  Most of which are missing person searches assisting local agencies........go figure

[Eclipse]

I like the idea of minimum ages and minimum grade.  Let them get a little more CAP'in under their belt before going hunting.

[DNall]

But still not shutting them off from ES ya know. UDF is a big part of the missions & that's open at 12 w/ curry now. Set GTM1 at 18 w/ mitchell & filter the rest in between. Keeps them moving.motivated on both side of the program. Keeps the brand new 16yo cadet from jumping ahead based on age alone.

No grade/TIS requirements on the adult side, but still you get team classification that puts the better qual'd folks on the higher probability sorties.

And you still don't get shut down if you don't have qual'd teams. It's just like ORM with the approval level for med/high/very high risk. If you want to put a GTM2 team on a GTM1 sortie, you need IC approval. If you want a GTM3 team on that sortie you have to clear it w/ the Wg/CC. You can still do it, but the decision to take the risk goes to higher, where it should be.

This solution seems elegantly simple to me. It's perfect. We can't hardly screw it up & I'm not really seeing a downside.

[Eclipse]

This solution seems elegantly simple to me. It's perfect. We can't hardly screw it up & I'm not really seeing a downside.

I agree, and I would also bet that the majority of cadets active in ES fall into the above age brackets organically anyway, other than the small number of cadets who attend NESA or HMRS.

[DNall]

Sure... plus, with NESA/HMRS, they don't slam thru the stuff in a year or two & then get bored sitting back on their bling & uber-eliteness. With it broken up by age you: a) get a more mature cadet at progressively higher/harder/more complex levels, b) get to take a step back and do really well-rounded training rather than check-boxing a bunch of random tasks, and c) give them something meaningful to advance thru year over year that continues to open up more & more options for them as they continue to be involved.

Man, who's got a Wg/CC handy? We need to pitch some policy right quick.

[RiverAux]

I suppose I should have clarified that I'm not really interested in having senior "super" ground teams train outside the normal parameters of what CAP ground teams regularly do, just making sure that every senior member on it is rock-solid in the currently required skills through regular sessions of as difficult and intense training as they can pull off. 

BTW...you are gonna get hammered for suggesting that we do GSAR without cadets (I agree BTW).

Actually, I'm not.  I think that there should be seniors only training, but with the expectation that often the actual missions will utilize teams made up both of seniors and cadets.  I think that by offering such senior-only training we have a better chance of bringing in adults who want to do GSAR without basically having to get super involved with the day-to-day administration of the cadet program. 

But, that aside, doesn't anyone have any real good ideas for bringing in seniors for GSAR?  The super GT idea really only addresses part of the problem, and perhaps not a big part at that. 

[DNall]

River.. I'm not suggesting "super" GTs. As you said, a lot of our members are a bit older, focused on flying, etc - we don't get the 21-40 yo athletic field type folks that want to buy a bunch of gear & slog thru the mud. So, we use our cadets as a crutch to get that done, with minimal adult supervision. That's fine for UDF, but not at all okay for redcap.

If you want more adults in GSAR, you have to go outside the org to get them, and that only happens when you qualify the need and facilitate the solution. By blocking off younger cadets from sorties they should not be involved in, you create a need for adults to fill those positions or CAP can't operate. That means adults can't just push it off on cadets. They have to train for & do that mission, and they have to recruit to fill that need. The guy on the outside looking in sees there is actually a need for him & training avail to meet that mission readiness requirement.

[RiverAux]

By blocking off younger cadets from sorties they should not be involved in, you create a need for adults to fill those positions or CAP can't operate.

I just don't see CAP leadership making that call so long as they're more or less satisfied with continuing to use our ground teams primarily for UDF and occassional missing airplane searches.  At a national level I don't see them doing that unless forced to do so. 

So, lets assume for the purposes of this thread that all existing national regulations will continue as they are now....if a squadron or wing wants to recruit more seniors for GSAR, how might they do it?

[DNall]

I just don't see CAP leadership making that call so long as they're more or less satisfied with continuing to use our ground teams primarily for UDF and occassional missing airplane searches.  At a national level I don't see them doing that unless forced to do so. 

I'm not sure that's correct. Missing airplane search is what I'm referring to when I say inappropriate for younger cadets. As I said, missing person is a very dicey issue. I'm more comfortable with air on that one than ground. Disaster I think is the better place to focus for mission expansion. In that area we've already seen age restrictions imposed by customers. Even the AF has serious restrictions on benefits avail to under 18 members. That should in itself impose major restrictions, as should general liability issues for exposing kids to bad things. Those are all issues CAP has been very responsive to.

So, lets assume for the purposes of this thread that all existing national regulations will continue as they are now....if a squadron or wing wants to recruit more seniors for GSAR, how might they do it?

There is no good answer to that. Targeted recruiting is the same for anything. If you need a comm officer you go to an amateur radio club & pitch that aspect of the program. If you want pilots, you go where pilots are & sell our flying aspects. If you want GT types, go to places where active young folks hang out - rock climbing, hiking, orienteering, etc. Talk to cops, EMS, fire fighters, volunteer FFs, red cross folks, CERT teams.... etc. Find the target audience and sell that aspect of your local Sq program. Be ready for incoming, have training set for FEMA courses, exercises with other agencies, etc.

On a Wg level... there's units focused on cadets, adult units focused on flying, why not start an adult unit focused on GSAR. A few in strategic spots. Over time you'll get there.

If you want a specific idea..... FLWG has the RECON program with the state to do air/grd photo assessment. I pitched an idea a year ago or so about integrated air/grd task force w/ a command & control RV, trailer, etc... front end assessment right behind the winds to help direct federal resources, yada yada. Put together a capability like that with these adult GSAR focused units taking the lead, offer that capability to state EOC & 1AF/FEMA. Pattern after Fl recon & ref them in your pitch - FL obviously is fairly respected in terms of disaster response.

[RiverAux]

Personally, I think focusing ground teams on missing airplane searches is a mistake.  We've got to train them to do that mission, but it is a rare situation where a ground team actually makes a huge difference in one of those searches.  You're not going to get those young folks to join to do GSAR based on the idea that maybe once a year they might get a missing airplane search and maybe once every 5 years they might actually get in on a find. 

Thats why we need to focus on lost person searches.  They happen much more often and there is a big need for trained GSAR to assist the local authorities in them.  A CAP squadron or wing with a large core of die-hard GSAR folks could probably have an oppportunity to do half a dozen missions a year or more in most states once the proper relationships have been built. 

The legal issues with lost person searches are no more difficult than they are with missing airplane searches and I see no reason to shy away from them.  In both cases you need to worry about evidence protection.  The way I figure it, if the sheriff is just fine with a bunch of un-trained yahoos being sent off to look for a lost hiker, CAP should be able to handle it with flying colors. 

I agree that a DR strategy for ground teams is sorely lacking, but I see that as lower priority than recruiting people to utilize the training programs we already have for SAR missions.  And, I just don't see GT DR missions as a big draw for younger folks, but more as something for our GSAR teams to do as an alternative mission.   

The ideas for recruiting are good though I'd probably not concentrate on recruiting from other existing first responder/DR organizations.  I wouldn't turn them away, of course, but we get more bang for our buck by recruiting people primarily dedicated to CAP.   

[DNall]

That's funny, cause we are focused primarily on missing aircraft all over the country, yet people are motivated to participate in GSAR. PJs are focused on downed aircraft too & they seem pretty popular.

Certainly I agree we can't make that all we do, but missing person isn't the answer either. The reason that's a primarily sheriff search teams is cause it for the most part a criminal search in the making. That is not something a CAP member of any age should be involved in. I understand we can restrictively offer our services for missing hikers & such, but that's going to only impact very targeted areas (parks, etc), and in doing so we cause that LE agency not to develop resources they can rely on when it is a criminal situation. Basically, I think it's a bad idea. On the other hand, I think there is a vast amount we can do in disaster response that has nothing to do with tossing sand bags or handing out blankets. That again is an area that people all over the country volunteer and train hard for regardless if they go out once a year or 20 times. It's the historical save the world aspect of the work they want to be part of.

[sarmed1]

The reason that's a primarily sheriff search teams...

Thats a matter of loctional perspective really.  In PA I have yet run into a "Sheriff's Search team" (or any other police search team) most teams are either fire department based, independant groups or CAP.

There is always the potential for "foul play" but that usually determined before non LE aspects are brought into play; on those type of searches I have seen primarily LE units conducting "search" until its determined otherwise...but the lost hiker, hunter, fisherman, kayaker or alzhimers patient is much more common.  In may past residency in PA, CAP was good for at least a 1/2 dozen of those a year.

Agreed though, a real DR response capability is something CAP needs to look at, not just the fill sandbags and hand out water type of operations.....RECON is an excellent model to build off of.

I liked the TACP type model as well (as was discussed awhile back in another thread)

mk

[DNall]

All/most/lots of missing persons searches have a high probability to end up criminal in mid stream (reflected in FEMA trng recommendations). AFRCC is involved with some searches when they feel that's a low probability, and abruptly pull the plug when that starts going the other way. I'm a lot more comfortable participating in that kind of thing from the air then having a team halfway up the mountain & they have to turn around and be replaced by some other asset that has to be activated cause we can't/shouldn't/won't be involved in that kind of work for any reason.

I don't see a lot of high side to drastically increasing GSAR capability for that kind of mission profile.

Locally speaking, I have NEVER seen CAP involved in missing person searches. A couple way out west in Big Bend, but park rangers did the ground work that we weren't/aren't capable of. The only missing person searches I've seen happen locally that involved any kind of volunteers were equisearch or general civilian participation, and have been exclusively looking for kids bodies in criminal matters.

We're tracking on the disaster response concept. We could have a whole separate conversation on what CAP should be doing in that area (as Ike bears down on me here).

[Eclipse]

My Wing was involved in a missing person's search last week involving an Alzheimer patient with a history of wandering off.

At least 3 different states sent CAP resources, My wing's CV was the IC, (making this his 4 or 5th multi-state real-world in the last threes years) I believe it was something like 8+ ground teams and several of our airplanes, and our IC was directing operations of aircraft from other agencies as well, including helicopters.

Sadly we did not find the missing person, but this type of mission is exactly the kind of thing CAP is good at and should be leaning forward on - we have lots of eyes and lot of boots.

[DNall]

That's fine. I'm not saying those kinds of things shouldn't be done. I just don't think we need to be tailoring our org of the future to focus on that as one of 2-3 primary missions. It's a very narrow mission, and narrower still within that to avoid criminal possibilities.

Personally, I have no idea why you're deploying those kind of resources on such a search. Is this out in some giant national forest or what? I mean we'd put an Amber alert out on something like that & LE agencies would devote some resources, but it's rather unlikely we'd put up air unless there was both an imminent danger (weather) and a high probability of finding them. I'm just really more comfortable leaving that to LE in most cases. I'm willing to give them some air support, less so with the ground for the several reasons I stated (other than criminal).

If we're going to set aside missing aircraft as our primary focus & pick up something else, I think the answer there is disaster assessment & response.

CAP is not a SaR agency. It is an agency that conducts Search (not so much rescue) as part of a larger package of support to civil authorities. Disaster fits better into that scheme than many other SaR missions.

[isuhawkeye]

you can't post amber alerts for that scenario.  you need very specific criteria to trigger an amber alert.

missing persons searches (when done right) take a lot of manpower, lots of different types of resources, and an experiencedcommand staff.  When properly trained and coordinated CAP can do these searches very well

[Eclipse]

Personally, I have no idea why you're deploying those kind of resources on such a search. Is this out in some giant national forest or what? I mean we'd put an Amber alert out on something like that & LE agencies would devote some resources, but it's rather unlikely we'd put up air unless there was both an imminent danger (weather) and a high probability of finding them. I'm just really more comfortable leaving that to LE in most cases. I'm willing to give them some air support, less so with the ground for the several reasons I stated (other than criminal).

Amber alerts are specifically for children who police believe were abducted, therefore it is a criminal situation the minute they push the button and we cannot be involved.

An AMBER Alert is a Child abduction alert system[/b], issued to the general public by various media outlets in Canada and in the United States, when police confirm that a child has been abducted. AMBER is the acronym for "America's Missing: Broadcasting Emergency Response", and was named for 9-year-old Amber Hagerman who was abducted and murdered in Arlington, Texas in 1996. Exceptions are in Georgia, where it is called Levi's Call[1], Hawaii, where it is called a Maile Amber Alert [2], and Arkansas, where it is called a Morgan Nick Amber Alert[3]. Those plans were named after children who went missing in those states.

The fact is LE doesn't have the resources to do large-scale searches over extensive rural areas.  As to why we wouldn't put up air...why wouldn't we put up air?  We should provide any resource the customer or the NOC is willing to pay for to prosecute a search as expediently as possible (not to mention provide safety valves for our people like high-birds).

(typos)

[isuhawkeye]

Eclipse is 100% correct here

[RiverAux]

The number of lost person searches that I've heard about that end up being criminal cases seems incredibly small based on everything I have ever read.  Sheriffs seem to have no problem utilizing teams of searchers from all walks of life when they happen and if they were the least bit worried about it messing up a case, they wouldn't let those people out there.  Whats the big deal -- find some evidence, keep your hands off.  Seems simple enough to me and no more difficult than training our GT folks to not mess with downed aicraft except to save a life. 

We're talking about using CAP in situations like the Alzheimer's patient or people that get lost while out in the woods.  Those are true SAR situations and not the sort of "missing person" cases that law enforcement handles when a teenager runs away or may have gotten abducted.  Those obviously aren't are business. 

[DNall]

First of all, Amber Alerts yes are technically a tool for missing believed kidnapped kids. Now, once that infrastructure is in place, why would LE not use it for specifically that Alzheimer's patient kind of situation. When I drive down the freeway in town they have amber or elder alerts that flash on the digital signs with lic plate numbers & what not.

And when I say criminal, I'm not talking about walking into a crime scene that might effect a case. I'm talking about some kid goes missing & you put your team out in the surrounded woods, turns out mid-stream it might be a kidnapping. At that point we're going home even if the kid is just over the next hill. No one else including random guy off the street is going to abandon the search like that. I'd rather leave it to other orgs/agencies that don't have those kinds of restrictions - also other orgs aren't going to put kids out in the field on that kind of thing. The worst case is you figure out it's criminal when you walk up on the whack-job with the kid.

Now, I live in a suburban area of a major metro city - as yall know. 5mins one way & I'm in a very urban area, 5mins the other way & I'm in the sticks. Still, anywhere we're going to search is going to be pretty much within 5min walk from a road. A missing person search is going to be narrowed to some kind of area. I don't care if a town has 2 police officers, once they turn on mutual aid they can have hundreds of folks out there in force - LE/fire/equisearch/etc. If there is a need for hundreds & hundreds of random people with no more skill than walking a search line, they can just put it out to the general public & have a lot of response.

I guess my point is I don't really see the mission. You got one end of the spectrum where just about anyone off the street can do the job with a little supervision, and the mutual aid system has built in folks to run those large groups w/ comms, etc. And there's the other end of the spectrum where you're talking about way way out in the dark woods somewhere a real long way from here. For us that's going to be some massive national park or something. The only time I've seen tat kind of thing is in big bend, which is a lot of vertical. Park ranger rescue teams do that work, with state air support.

Again, I have no issue putting up air when it's going to be useful. For the most part though I think it's going to be a waste of resources for most missing persons searches. I'd rather them focus their resources in on the target areas. The air support that's going to be actually useful is usually going to be helo, not cessnas.

And again, I'm not against us doing the mission!! I'm against CAP nationally shifting our GSAR focus to this as a primary mission set. It's something we can do from time to time on the side, but certainly not something we should specialize in.

[Eclipse]

DNall, I'm missing your point here - Amber alerts aren't "technically" for abducted kids, that's all they can be used for, what they should be /could be/etc., is irrelevant.

This is squarely in our court - a much more structured, "professionalized" force of people who can be tasked to do something with a high degree of certainty they will do it close to correct.

"Civilians" in the same situation will require professional monitoring by members of the agency they are supporting, and haven't likely had any training on how to act in situations like these.

As to the aircraft, again, for $85-100 an hour, if its sitting on the ramp, why wouldn't you put it up.  Grandpa in a white housecoat will be easier to spot by air in the middle of a cornfield than by ground pounders.

I also don't see how you can assert this is a shift in focus, its just one tasking in our Ground mission, and an expectation
of our qualified people.  A big chunk of the country is no longer desolate wilderness that requires helicopter evac, as you say, it is traditionally rural and semi-rural areas where populations have encroached on woods and farms, and people get themselves lost.

GSAR, by me, is never going to be about survival experiences.

[RiverAux]

Lets not get sidetracked on a discussion of the purpose of CAP ground teams.  I think that we can all agree that we need more adults for ground team work no matter what we have them doing. 

[Eclipse]

Lets not get sidetracked on a discussion of the purpose of CAP ground teams.  I think that we can all agree that we need more adults for ground team work no matter what we have them doing. 

Well, to get things back on track, I can agree that we need more members, period, but it is not my reality that GSAR is a "cadet" thing.

Most are unable to respond or deploy on their own, nor for extended periods.  I appreciate it when they can participate, but generally assume their numbers will be limited.

I had a small bivouac this weekend that I turned around in a couple days because of a change in a larger SAREX, completely  ground-tasked focus, with 9 participants and only 2 cadets.

Id you aren't getting enough seniors for GSAR and related operations, you aren't selling it right, which may be the point.

For example, an impetus by us is to have all aircrew UDF qualified so they can actually do something on the ramp if they fly to an airport with an active ELT.

Sell the mission and its value, not the participants.  If you have old-schoolers who don't want to deal with cadets, don't invite cadets to all the parties.

[DNall]

DNall, I'm missing your point here - Amber alerts aren't "technically" for abducted kids, that's all they can be used for, what they should be /could be/etc., is irrelevant.

You understand "Amber Alert" is a made up thing in the first place. A kid gets kidnapped, bank gets robbed, etc it has always gone out over the telex to every agency in the state, and always been on the news right away. It's a very small matter that they now post it a few websites & road signs. They do exactly the same thing here for missing elders, car chases, or any other such thing. And 99% of the time it's completely useless.

This is squarely in our court - a much more structured, "professionalized" force of people who can be tasked to do something with a high degree of certainty they will do it close to correct.

"Civilians" in the same situation will require professional monitoring by members of the agency they are supporting, and haven't likely had any training on how to act in situations like these.

I think we're in no way trained or qualified for any kind of GSAR personally, but that's another subject. Anyone can walk a search line with at most 5mins training. Where something more complex is involved, LE will be doing it anyway. We're not a highly qualified specialized SaR force.

As to the aircraft, again, for $85-100 an hour, if its sitting on the ramp, why wouldn't you put it up.  Grandpa in a white housecoat will be easier to spot by air in the middle of a cornfield than by ground pounders.

You know as well as I do the cost is 2-3 times that much depending on gas prices. And you can't see much from a 1000AGL at 100kts. 150-500ft tops & 30-60kts is what you need for individuals on the ground. That & able to drop in on targets w/o having to orbit in. The money means very little in this kind of case. The time to use CAP is the same as for ELTs. You narrow it down to a focused area with the cheap flying. Then hit the priority target areas with more effective platforms.

I also don't see how you can assert this is a shift in focus, its just one tasking in our Ground mission, and an expectation of our qualified people.  A big chunk of the country is no longer desolate wilderness that requires helicopter evac, as you say, it is traditionally rural and semi-rural areas where populations have encroached on woods and farms, and people get themselves lost.

GSAR, by me, is never going to be about survival experiences.

I think you're misunderstanding helicopter search, but whatever, that's not the point. his premise here is we need more adults on GSAR so we can move away from missing aircraft search as it falls away & take up an alternate primary mission of missing persons. I disagree with that. I believe we should retain focus in support to civil authorities in whatever form that may take. I don't particularly care about saving an individual here or there. It's nice I guess, but I'm here to accomplish big things for my country. To me that means disaster much more than missing persons. It's not that we can't do both, we just have to understand where our focus is.

[NavLT]

I think that age/grade restricitons for cadets might be a good thing but you need to consider which is wiser.  A cadet who is 17 but a C/A1c vs a C/1LT who is 15.  Some of this is very arbitrary.  I think linking it to grade is smarter if you have a program where they actually do the "commanders verify that the member is matrue enough to handle the grade".

Ground SAR is a little more dicey because you don't get exposed to all the ugly issues up close from 5000 feet.  DR if you look at Katrina had bodies floating in the muck so that is not safe either.  If you want SAFE get out of SAR.

V/R
LT J.

[DNall]

^Roger that. The restriction we mentioned, IIRC, says age AND grade. So the 15yo C/1Lt would still not be able to do GTM2. The 17yo C/A1C would only be able to do UDF till they get beyond wright bros, then only GTM3 till whatever. I don't know that we hashed it out fully, but the gist is prereqs in both categories - so they have both experience int he program AND maturity (we hope). Fact is there's no circumstances under which I should be able to put a 12-13yo kid in front of a dead body, and the court isn't going to care how far they've progressed in the program.

[notaNCO forever]

From what I've seen you can't judge a cadets grade by there maturity. In a perfect world I think restrictions on age/grade is a great idea. In are squadron the deciding factor if a cadet can be on the GT is the GTL and squadron commander.

[DNall]

^ customers aren't going to take that, and neither are the civil courts. Neither are our Sq CCs really prepared to make those kinds of decisions.

There's a really big difference between GT that really means UDF or even real search, versus walking up on a crash. We know our GTLs should be able to keep them off the bad stuff, but we don't actually train them for that. As much as we'd like to say that's part of the approval process, we need those folks so desperately that it isn't. And they end up being drivers for cadets on most missions anyway.

There's no separation of what mission poses more CISM or hazard risk than another. That's a critical part of the process. You then need resources (teams made up of mbr qual levels - GTM1-3) that can be plugged into those risk levels.

The end result of that system is.. well it doesn't actually make us less mission capable, it points out the lack of capability we have right now, and creates the demand to fix that, while at the same time being a good thing within the cadet program.

[NavLT]

The end result of that system is.. well it doesn't actually make us less mission capable, it points out the lack of capability we have right now, and creates the demand to fix that, while at the same time being a good thing within the cadet program.

While I whole heartedly agree it creates a demand to fix what is wrong, I wait to see any move to fix it.

I think I would say it proves the falsehood of our stated capability to reality as opposed to saying it does not make us less mission capable.

No single arbitrary bench mark is going to fit; age, grade, height, etc.



V/R
Lt J.

[Rotorhead]

First of all, Amber Alerts yes are technically a tool for missing believed kidnapped kids.

Not just "techincally."

Specifically, and by law.

[DNall]

First of all, Amber Alerts yes are technically a tool for missing believed kidnapped kids.

Not just "techincally."

Specifically, and by law.

Dear God!!! Every time a kid has been kidnapped since the 60s a telex message has gone out to every agency in the state. The only thing that law did was put that info in the public. I don't know if it's ever mad a difference, and not to be cold but I don't care. Now, that you have that infrastructure of pushing the info out for specifically missing kids. Why in the world would you hold back the same info for missing adults in distress (ie the Alzheimer patient scenario). Who the hell cares what you call it, and what does it have to do with CAP?!?

Now, back to... ELT & search for missing aircraft is in decline with improved technology & has been since the 50s. CAP doesn't have enough ES mission to keep our members active or motivated to train. Hence, we have massive problems with membership recruiting/retention, ES readiness, and training. The net result being we're declining in relevance from where we once were.  Meanwhile many other needs exist in the country that CAP is exactly suited to fill, and which fit our traditional purposes. So...

Should CAP: A) stick to SaR & refocus our skill set on missing persons, with all the pros/cons that come with that; or, B) stick to the reason we got into SaR, which is support of govt/AF mission needs, and hence refocus our ES program on aspects like disaster response & actually niche out a place for ourselves in HLS?

My position is without question B. I'm willing to do a little of A within reason/restrictions & way down the list secondary to B, but B is what we're all about & what we need to fix ourselves to build the future on.