Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 18, 2018, 07:26:29 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Emergency Services & Operations  |  Topic: CAP-SAR & State Laws
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All Print
Author Topic: CAP-SAR & State Laws  (Read 2757 times)
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,068

« Reply #20 on: May 20, 2018, 04:22:27 PM »

Not all wings are the same, and no Wing DOS are the same.

Agreed, which is why my comment indicated you should keep going "up" until the right answer comes out.

Lots of people like to make things up locally, either to maintain a fiefdom, because they don't know
better, or "reasons".  That doesn't make it right.

It's a national standard for a reason.
Logged


Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,679

« Reply #21 on: May 20, 2018, 04:39:31 PM »

Two examples.

One SET I know very experienced otherwise. He teaches that on a line search, one person marks the path taken in a forest with flagging tape. At the end of the required path, the team does a 180 turn and the tape is removed.

The required tasks do not say anything the tape is removed. It may stand for reason, such as ecological, but what if a second team will follow this team?

Second example.

Another SET I know teaches that on a pace count, the distance of one pace is one standard step such as that taken when marching. And the step he takes is a long one. That everyone should take the same distance.

The required task states that the pace is individual, to obtain the pace length you set a course 100 meters long then you walk it, to see how many paces it takes you to travel it. Which he does not use.

And there is such differences between each and everyone.

Plus when you announce "local training" you are always, but always asked "will there be someone to sign you off?" If you answer "no," almost no one attends.


Logged
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,068

« Reply #22 on: May 20, 2018, 06:41:57 PM »

^ The answers are in your questions, and start with "show me", and end with
a memo to the Wing DO regarding one of his SETs not following procedure.

As to people not showing up if no one will sign them off, that is an attitudinal adjustment,
but also a self-leveling problem - no one shows then you don't have an issue next time they
whine about wanting training.

People can't have it both ways.
Logged


Toth
Member

Posts: 60

« Reply #23 on: May 20, 2018, 09:14:09 PM »

In Montana, by state law, SAR is run completely by the local sheriff's office. If they choose to use CAP as a resource, great, but 99/100 times we don't get called. Mostly MTWG just runs planes for photographing things like flooding and wildfire. As a result, even our most senior cadets usually only have GTM3 training, if that, and those of us who have more quals usually get them from NCSAs.
Logged
C/Capt Toth Mendius, CAP
C/CC RMR-MT-053 (ret.), RMR Ass't Rep NCAC (ret.)
Mitchell #65174, Earhart #17361
GES, ♦ICUT, ♦FLM, GTM3, UDF, SET, MS, MRO, EMT, *GTM2
sardak
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,200

« Reply #24 on: May 20, 2018, 11:56:40 PM »

^^^^
In Montana, as with Washington (and Idaho in-between), the sheriff is responsible for ground SAR but the state aeronautics division is responsible for aeronautical SAR. http://www.mdt.mt.gov/aviation/search-rescue.shtml

Mike
Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,967

« Reply #25 on: May 21, 2018, 06:47:49 AM »

In Montana, by state law, SAR is run completely by the local sheriff's office. If they choose to use CAP as a resource, great, but 99/100 times we don't get called. Mostly MTWG just runs planes for photographing things like flooding and wildfire. As a result, even our most senior cadets usually only have GTM3 training, if that, and those of us who have more quals usually get them from NCSAs.
Then that is a problem in your ES program in that the squadron/group/Wing ES officers aren't taking the time necessary to go and meet with the sheriffs to discuss CAP's abilities as they should be doing.  This is apparently a problem in most Wings, so don't take it personally.  This sort of coordination won't solve the call-out problem unless you also have enough well-trained people that it is worth their while to remember to call you.  Sort of a chicken and egg situation though as its hard to recruit people unless there are missions and its hard to get missions unless you have the people....
Logged
OldGuy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 455
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #26 on: May 21, 2018, 08:59:02 AM »

Then that is a problem in your ES program in that the squadron/group/Wing ES officers aren't taking the time necessary to go and meet with the sheriffs to discuss CAP's abilities as they should be doing. 
That is not allowed at the local level, MOUs have to be negotiated by NHQ and Wing LOs.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,068

« Reply #27 on: May 21, 2018, 10:00:54 AM »

Then that is a problem in your ES program in that the squadron/group/Wing ES officers aren't taking the time necessary to go and meet with the sheriffs to discuss CAP's abilities as they should be doing. 
That is not allowed at the local level, MOUs have to be negotiated by NHQ and Wing LOs.

A - This is incorrect.  See CAPR 111-2.  CMAs have to approve the final MOUs, but they don't have to be
the ones to make the contacts, start the process, and certainly they aren't the ones to maintain the relationship(s).
There are also plenty of other instruments of agreement, including a handshake, other then an MOU,
which frankly isn't generally worth the effort. (see just about every other CAP MOU for reference).

B - Making local contacts and agreements for response is not only allowed, it's
literally one of the duties of the operations / ES staff at all levels.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2018, 10:05:33 AM by Eclipse » Logged


OldGuy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 455
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #28 on: May 21, 2018, 11:23:12 AM »

 Negotiation of such relationships, especially in the form of MOUs, is solely within the authority of the wing commander and he/she may choose to delegate that authority. Those negotiating new or revised MOUs should utilize legal officer services to the greatest extent possible.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2018, 11:28:40 AM by OldGuy » Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,068

« Reply #29 on: May 21, 2018, 01:03:59 PM »

Negotiation of such relationships, especially in the form of MOUs when an MOU is necessary, is solely within the authority of requires the approval of the wing commander and he/she may choose to delegate that authority. Those negotiating new or revised MOUs should utilize legal officer services to the greatest extent possible.

FTFY.

MOUs are not required for "relationships" with customer agencies, and in fact are usually
more trouble then they are worth.

Yes, when and if an MOU is signed the CMA has to sign it, but the relationship itself, if it's below
the state level, and especially at the county or lower, is the direct responsibility of the unit or Group ESO, not the Wing.

CAPR 20-1, page 29 (Emergency Services Officer):
"Develop agreements with agencies responsible for search, domestic emergencies, and civil defense."

That's not a subjective delegation, that's the job.

My wing has 102 counties (TXWG has 254), and while there is an MOU in place between it and the AFRCC
as required by law, there is no MOU with CAP (state's not interested in the conversation) yet we get more then a little ES work
based solely on local agreements that are fully within the regs (i.e. you need us, call the NOC, we'll be there).

No MOU, no letter, just a handshake.

Most CAP MOUs just recognize the existence of the two parties and "encourage cooperation", they are not
contracts, nor do they guarantee work, the relationship with the local managers and some assurance of
performance are what get CAP work.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2018, 01:10:30 PM by Eclipse » Logged


Spaceman3750
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,650

« Reply #30 on: May 21, 2018, 03:21:26 PM »

To refine Eclipse’s point, the best time to have an MOU is when a customer needs it internally guarantee a funding stream when he wants to call CAP. Sometimes it’s easier to get the accounts payable office to pay a bill when there’s an existing piece of paper, rather than the EM manager explaining how he spent $3k on pictures from someone nobody has ever heard of before.

Other than that, probably not a lot of reasons to go through the work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
The moment any commander or staff member considers themselves a gatekeeper, instead of a facilitator, they have failed at their job.
I can't fix all of CAP's problems, but I can lead from the bottom by building my squadron as a center of excellence to serve as an example of what every unit can be.
OldGuy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 455
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #31 on: May 21, 2018, 08:20:47 PM »

And yet some Wing LOs guard that turf zealously.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,068

« Reply #32 on: May 21, 2018, 09:17:03 PM »

And yet some Wing LOs guard that turf zealously.

LO?  You mean on the Wing volunteer staff?  Or CAP-USAF?

The former isn't a "thing", and the latter hasn't been a factor (or existed, for probably 10 years).

BITD State Directors, and before them, Liaison Officers, (at least the better ones) did want to be
involved in initiating and managing outside agency relationships, but sadly their ability to do that effectively
evaporated along with the manpower over the last 15 some years.
Logged


OldGuy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 455
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #33 on: May 21, 2018, 09:18:54 PM »

And yet some Wing LOs guard that turf zealously.

LO?  You mean on the Wing volunteer staff?  Or CAP-USAF?

The former isn't a "thing", and the latter hasn't been a factor (or existed, for probably 10 years).

BITD State Directors, and before them, Liaison Officers, (at least the better ones) did want to be
involved in initiating and managing outside agency relationships, but sadly their ability to do that effectively
evaporated along with the manpower over the last 15 some years.
LO = Legal Officer.
Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,967

« Reply #34 on: May 21, 2018, 09:29:19 PM »

And yet some Wing LOs guard that turf zealously.
They have no turf to guard.  As Eclipse pointed out, it is the ES officers job to talk to local officials and there are almost no circumstances where any sort of official agreement is needed (and hasn't been for 10+ years).  Going to sit down with the sherrif and giving him the NOC's number is about all you need to do. 
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,068

« Reply #35 on: May 21, 2018, 09:31:35 PM »

Yep.

LO = Legal Officer.

Also, Legal Officer is "JA" not "LO".
Logged


OldGuy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 455
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #36 on: May 21, 2018, 09:42:33 PM »

And yet some Wing LOs guard that turf zealously.
They have no turf to guard.  As Eclipse pointed out, it is the ES officers job to talk to local officials and there are almost no circumstances where any sort of official agreement is needed (and hasn't been for 10+ years).  Going to sit down with the sherrif and giving him the NOC's number is about all you need to do.
OK. But that is not the situation here.
Logged
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,255

« Reply #37 on: May 21, 2018, 10:20:52 PM »

And yet some Wing LOs guard that turf zealously.
They have no turf to guard.  As Eclipse pointed out, it is the ES officers job to talk to local officials and there are almost no circumstances where any sort of official agreement is needed (and hasn't been for 10+ years).  Going to sit down with the sherrif and giving him the NOC's number is about all you need to do.
OK. But that is not the situation here.

And where is "here"?
Logged
Holding Pattern
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,278
Unit: Worry

« Reply #38 on: May 22, 2018, 02:35:28 AM »

Yep.

LO = Legal Officer.

Also, Legal Officer is "JA" not "LO".

Looks like GC to me...

EDIT: No, that is just what is on the OPR for the doc I was looking at.

« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 02:39:28 AM by Holding Pattern » Logged
sarmed1
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 932

« Reply #39 on: May 22, 2018, 11:34:38 AM »

this one time......
X Wing complained that the state agency that was responsible for SAR never called them to assist with GSAR operations despite and MOU and having a ready source of manpower.  Fast forward, an exercise was planned at the Wing level, with said agency to overview the scenario and have an actual supervisory level person present to act as the liaison. 

Despite extensive lead time, the turnout was around 16 people.  Most of them were not even GTM3(T), somehow they were led to believe that they could just participate as GES.  If I recall correctly most of the qualified team members were only GTM3.  Overall the teams abilities to accomplish the evaluated tasks was complicated.  They had a fantastic opportunity to prove that previous beliefs about CAP GSAR capability were unfounded; and dropped the ball horrendously.  That relationship is likely broken (still) for a very long time.

Moral of the story:  You cant effectively sell a product on what it might be able to do.  You will never be able to convince an outside SAR agency to use CAP based on the fluff of a capabilities briefing:  If you can only field a 8 man team, dont tell them you have a team of 24.  (tell them 24 team members with an average response capability of 8)  if your team is mostly GTM3's with a couple of GTM1's, dont sell it as a GTM 1 capable team... if thats what you need to sell, train and qualify to a point that its mostly GTM1's instead, then sell it.

MK
Logged
Mark Kleibscheidel
TSgt USAFR
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Emergency Services & Operations  |  Topic: CAP-SAR & State Laws
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.072 seconds with 20 queries.