USAF SAR Evals, Are They Helpful?

[ELTHunter]

We are getting into that time of year where there have been, and will be a lot of SAR evals taking place.  I have been involved in a few of these, as well as many missions and non-eval SARX's.  I can't see a lot of benefit in the Eval's other than another opportunity to practice.  They tend to be more dog and pony show than actual real scenario practices.  How many actual missions do you have an army of staff at a large mission base with weeks to prepare and often practice, practice missions prior to the actual eval?

I understand the USAF needs to make sure we are trained to the approved standards, but I'm not sure I see a lot of value to the training preparing people for an actual emergency situation.  If you believe the old adage "you play like you practice".

If they really want to see how it really is, why don't they start at 0'dark thirty at the IC's house and see what a real mission progresses.  How many folks we can muster, what the stand up time is, etc.?

What's you opinion?

[davedove]

They're just like many of the inspections in the military.  Everyone jumps through hoops so that everything is polished.  Everyone knows it's not reality, but they keep doing it anyway.

[RiverAux]

I have yet to see a SAREVAL with a realistic ground SAR scenario as I mentioned in another thread. 

The air search and other scenarios are usually okay and probably do test most of our capabilities with the exception of air photo missions -- haven't ever seen them review the photos we actually took to see if we did a good job or not -- if we flew the mission we were successful in their book.

[bosshawk]

CAWG gets to play this game 8-10 June.  Will be interesting to see how it goes or doesn't go.  The practice earlier this month turned out reasonably well, thanks to the efforts of some really talented people who stepped in and made it happen.

I am usually unpopular when I say that I don't like to practice being miserable, but that is how I generally view SAREXs.

[isuhawkeye]

An offer was mead to the LO to send him to a FEMA exercise design course.  He declined stating that he doesnt do this enough

[arajca]

An offer was mead to the LO to send him to a FEMA exercise design course.  He declined stating that he doesnt do this enough

How about recommending IS-139 Exercise Design?

[CadetProgramGuy]

An offer was mead to the LO to send him to a FEMA exercise design course.  He declined stating that he doesnt do this enough

How about recommending IS-139 Exercise Design?

I have taken that course and it is informative.  The IS-139 does walk you through the principles of exercise design, however there is a major difference between executing principles and executing a design for a mission.

I for one am in the train of thought that you must train harder, more difficult, and in the nastiest of terrain and weather.  Thats when we get our calls.  2:00AM, nasty weather.

CPG

[RiverAux]

In my opinion SAREVALs should be designed by and evaluated by the most hardcore CAP ICs that can be found from outside the evaluated Wing.

Not to disparge the AF, but they don't get any training in what we do and how we're supposed to be doing it.  So, they don't really know how to design these exercises to really evaluate our capabilities.  Sure, if the whole mission staff is messed up they should be able to see and evaluate that but beyond that we can't expect much.

Ideally the evaluator should be more qualified in the field being evaluated than are the persons being evaluated.  In this case, the evaluators know less about how things are supposed to work than the people they're grading. 

[Pumbaa]

The more you sweat in practice, the less you bleed in action!

[ZigZag911]

USAF air sortie scenarios tend to be pretty good, innovative, and instructive....so are the problems they toss at the mission managers.....there does seem to be a weakness on the GT side (undoubtedly die to their lack of experience in this area), which could be remedied by getting some CAP region or national level 'subject matter' experts involved in the SAREVAL planning team.

[mikeylikey]

NO......SAREVALS are little more than a moral booster if you do good and a letdown if you suck.  Plus, if the AF wants to evaluate us......why arent they training us?  Can't and should not evaluate someone or something you are not willing to take the time with and help fix!

[flynd94]

CAWG gets to play this game 8-10 June.  Will be interesting to see how it goes or doesn't go.  The practice earlier this month turned out reasonably well, thanks to the efforts of some really talented people who stepped in and made it happen.

I am usually unpopular when I say that I don't like to practice being miserable, but that is how I generally view SAREXs.

What SAREX were you watching.  I was the IC (and Jim) of the NorCal base at RHV.   We had nothing but problems with the brain trust running the show at Castle.  It was one of the largest Charlie Foxtrot's I have seen in the Wing.   I am extremely nervous for the real deal.  Also considering that we are only going to sortie 6 aircraft.  Thats right 6 out of the 20+ we have.  I asked the question what if we have too many air tasks, the answer was we will tell the AF we can't handle it.  CAWG is trying to show the AF our uncapabilities on this SAREVAL.   It will be interesting to see the fallout from the exercise.

[afgeo4]

CAWG gets to play this game 8-10 June.  Will be interesting to see how it goes or doesn't go.  The practice earlier this month turned out reasonably well, thanks to the efforts of some really talented people who stepped in and made it happen.

I am usually unpopular when I say that I don't like to practice being miserable, but that is how I generally view SAREXs.

What SAREX were you watching.  I was the IC (and Jim) of the NorCal base at RHV.   We had nothing but problems with the brain trust running the show at Castle.  It was one of the largest Charlie Foxtrot's I have seen in the Wing.   I am extremely nervous for the real deal.  Also considering that we are only going to sortie 6 aircraft.  Thats right 6 out of the 20+ we have.  I asked the question what if we have too many air tasks, the answer was we will tell the AF we can't handle it.  CAWG is trying to show the AF our uncapabilities on this SAREVAL.   It will be interesting to see the fallout from the exercise.

Perhaps that's exactly why USAF does CAP SAR evals. To see what capabilities they actually CAN bring to the table. Not on paper, but in real life.

On paper, CAWG has 20+ aircraft you say?  They can only task 6? Well... that's the real capability of CAWG then, isn't it? That's what the fallout should be and hopefully someone competent will get upset with it and figure out how to fix it.

[wingnut]

Oh gee,
part of what really bothers me about CAP is a 'see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil", you are absolutely correct in stating CAWG could not get more than 6 or 7 aircraft up in the air, this has happened many times, the USAF guys have the opinion that much of CAP is a flying club (heard it before have ya) I have flown with many pilots and observer/scanners who don't have a clue how to operate CAP radios, procedures, flight ops. Is it a sham?? It is if we present a paper Mache image to the Air Force. However, there are a few Squadrons who are above the rest and they are pulling the weight of the CAWG, some of them have lots of pilots but no CAP Airplane, I am a CAP retred rejoining after a 25 year absence, I see little change, except fewer pilots and cadets
( really few)  in the last year that I have been active I flew over 100 hours of missions and SAREX so I know of what I speak. I am disappointed, very disenchanted, we are being run by some senior Officers who many are not qualified to be in the supervisory positions, can't handle stress, and produce no meaningful results (Peter principle). I have flown with pilots who are flat out dangerous to fly with, we get  no facility support, no assistance for aircrews to obtain ANY safety equipment (flight suits, rafts, etc) why on Gods green earth would you make a member buy a surplus flight suit from Ebay when the Air Force is throwing them away, (don't give me crap about just ask wing) . Point is CAP is not user friendly, I am embarrassed to recruit anymore new members until I see some common sense taking hold. If not I will not waste anymore of my time going to a sarex and sitting on my butt watching a live F troop play.

I want to know what we get as a country for 25 million per year, maybe we should reconsider the 500 plane force and cut back to 350 and sink the rest of the money into training and STAYING CURRENT, that means being able to do what we say we can do.

Sorry just blogged my guts out

[flynd94]

The major problem we had in our practice session for the actual Eval was command and control.  The brain trust failed, failed miserably.   We had crews in NorCal for all of our assigned aircraft.  We just sat waiting while the folks at Castle tried to figure out what was going on.  Part of the problem is that they don't understand how to use ICS to their advantage, and the shear size of state.

The plan was to have 1 main base (Castle) and, 2 remote bases (Norcal-RHV, Socal-WHP).  They wanted to use the IMU2 in distributed mode.  We found out that the server couldn't handle it.  One would think you would test this capability before.  Next, they didn't think through how to get the taskings sent to the sub-bases.   We ended up making up our own taskings (we thought ahead and, had a plan B) for our crews so, they could get some practice in.  Also, you don't want to have crews sitting around all day with nothing to do.

The big problem in CAWG is that Ops has lacked strong leadership in the past couple of years and, now we are suffering.  We want to have to many Chiefs.  Its funny, we get one message from our DO, then the assistant DO says something different and so on.

Its a great show to watch but, sad at the same time.  Like the previous poster said, we have  many good crews out there but, a few ruin it for the rest of us.

JMHO

[afgeo4]

That sucks. I think what sucks more is the fact that CAWG isn't the only one in the situation. It's difficult to put out fully trained flightcrews when we're all volunteers without unlimited funds and time. That's probably a very difficult thing to understand for USAF people since they get paid and trained, but it's true. CAP isn't a professional organization, we're a volunteer one.

[wingnut]

OK

So  How do we make it better, I for one detest the guys who show up to meetings and do nothing but criticize, I  know that we have a huge number of guys who are very capable, I have flown with crews that are more professional than any I flew with in the AF. No one can deny that we are for the most part an organization of professionals who volunteer much of our time and utilize our expertise in the support of CAP.   

[flynd94]

OK

So  How do we make it better, I for one detest the guys who show up to meetings and do nothing but criticize, I  know that we have a huge number of guys who are very capable, I have flown with crews that are more professional than any I flew with in the AF. No one can deny that we are for the most part an organization of professionals who volunteer much of our time and utilize our expertise in the support of CAP.   

We have spoken up and, our suggestions were downplayed.  We suffer from strong leader (DO), he is a great guy but, not the type to take the bull by the horns/getta er' done type.  Also, we suffer from too many chiefs who think they know what they are doing and have no clue.  Some of them have been around for decades so, its hard to get past them.  I will continue to hit my head against the wall.  I will also continue to build a strong ES program at the Sq level.

KS

[IceNine]

Sar-Evals as they currently stand are the equivalent of every other checklist on the planet.  A degree in college typically does not prepare you for a job in the real world it says that you completed the check boxes necessary for a piece of paper saying your know about the principles of a potential career field, nothing more.  Just as getting an outstanding on a mission is nothing more than saying that you complete the mission and instead of using crayon to write your op plan you thought it out and typed everything up.  The Evals are necessary but as they stand they are in no way even a decent representation of the abilities of a wing.  My thought is that the mission should be called into whomever happens to be the Alerting Officer/IC for the wing at the time.  And let them spin up the mission in there underwear in their bedroom like the typical mission would be run.  Everyone knows that IC's rarely get dressed when running a mission from the beginning let alone leave the house to set up an ICP.  If we get the opportunity to do a For real, no crap scenario and we fall on our faces then we at least have a starting point of where to re-direct our training efforts, and if we can pull off a 72 hour mission execution without running banker's hours then we are truly ready for "the real deal".  You'd figure after Katrina that would be "highly suggested" by our "Big Brother"

[ELTHunter]

Sar-Evals as they currently stand are the equivalent of every other checklist on the planet.  A degree in college typically does not prepare you for a job in the real world it says that you completed the check boxes necessary for a piece of paper saying your know about the principles of a potential career field, nothing more.  Just as getting an outstanding on a mission is nothing more than saying that you complete the mission and instead of using crayon to write your op plan you thought it out and typed everything up.  The Evals are necessary but as they stand they are in no way even a decent representation of the abilities of a wing.  My thought is that the mission should be called into whomever happens to be the Alerting Officer/IC for the wing at the time.  And let them spin up the mission in there underwear in their bedroom like the typical mission would be run.  Everyone knows that IC's rarely get dressed when running a mission from the beginning let alone leave the house to set up an ICP.  If we get the opportunity to do a For real, no crap scenario and we fall on our faces then we at least have a starting point of where to re-direct our training efforts, and if we can pull off a 72 hour mission execution without running banker's hours then we are truly ready for "the real deal".  You'd figure after Katrina that would be "highly suggested" by our "Big Brother"

I agree totally.  Sure we can get full crews for six or eight aircraft, ICP staff, full ground teams, and an operating comm network when we have two months and a practice SARX to prepare for the eval.  That, in no way, is Representative of our ability to stand up qualified people and equip them at a moments notice.  Yet every year, here we are taking weeks/months to prepare and recruit mission personnel and prepping equipment so we can put on a big dog & pony show complete with Powerpoint Slides and computer generated maps of the AO.  I understand that makes everybody feel good because CAP can say "look what we can do" to the Air Force, and the Air Force can turn around and say "look what we can do" to the 1st AF and FEMA.  I agree that it might provide a training opportunity for a lot of folks.  However, you end up spending a lot of training funding without uncovering any of the problems we need to know about in order to get better in real life.

Somewhere between the underware scenario and the dog & pony show lies the answer, IMHO.

Some might say that's how the real military does it, but that doesn't mean that it's the right approach.

[Eclipse]

OK

So  How do we make it better, I for one detest the guys who show up to meetings and do nothing but criticize, I  know that we have a huge number of guys who are very capable, I have flown with crews that are more professional than any I flew with in the AF. No one can deny that we are for the most part an organization of professionals who volunteer much of our time and utilize our expertise in the support of CAP.   

You either tell them directly to "Shut up and color", or simply marginalize them until they no longer participate.

Build a program and an ops tempo that requires they put their money where their mouth is.  Will this reduce numbers?  Maybe?  But I can promise a functional program will bring you all the new recruits you need.

GOB's and ROMEOs are plenty happy just showing up, whining, and going for coffee - the rest of the week they tell everyone how they are a Light Kernal in the USAF/Aux.  A REAL program, takes REAL work, which usually scares these guys away, however the real assets will be telling their friends and co-workers how awesome the unit is and will bring them in for meetings, etc.

Want to raise the military bearing?  Well, you could ask your people if they "want to", or just start wearing your uniforms more, having inspections, and holding formations. 

Rinse, repeat.


Rinse, repeat.

[arajca]

Good point. I think the majority of us here wouolf love something like this. Unfortunetely, we do run CAP, yet.

Rinse, repeat.


Rinse, repeat.

You forgot to lather. 

[RiverAux]

Yes, the vast majority of our missions do not require setting up a large base and using a large number of staff members.  The AF knows that the IC sitting in his pajamas can send out a ground team and an aircraft to find an ELT.  However, it is just the large scale mission for which we do need to practice.  That is when you really have to have your stuff together or it is a major botch (reference the McGuire AFB thread).  As I said, I'm not sure the AF is the right group to evaluate us but it does need to be done. 

[wingnut]

Msn suspended due to lack of resources


This email was sent this AM. The ELT Mission was in Southern California, around Palm Springs, this is SAR reality, unless we recruit members who can participate we are dead, on the other hand the issues are. . .Crap participation in ELT searches by Southern California Units, some units have 60+ members.  The guys who do the Missions are the SAME ONES OVER AND OVER.  Ladys, We failed both the USAF and our Community, WE FAILED IN OUR MISSION.

EVALUATE THAT

PS:  There are reasons no one answers the phone, is it MUTINY??have we had 10 false ELTs in the last 2 months in the same area? are people repelled by the IC,  Stay Tuned, as the CAP WORLD TURNS:

[Chaplaindon]

As an IC, and one who served as a SAREVAL IC/MC in the past, I can only describe the system of USAF EVALS (Monitored SAREXs) as "theatrical productions."

They demonstrate:

• How well the USAFR can devise intricate scenarios for CAP to foul up.
• How well a given wing can do if they have: months to prepare, handpicked staff and crews, the best aircraft and vehicles, ideal facilities, & an orderly --CONVENIENT-- schedule of operations (e.g. not too early in the AM, or too late in the PM, not during important holidays or likely in-climate wx, etc.).

IMHO, they do absolutely nothing toward defining the actual capacity and/or operational readiness of a given unit, group or wing to respond to any sort of real-life emergency services operation (the ostensible purpose of such evaulations). And what's worse, the leadership of CAP knows this (as I have been told this directly by wing and region CC's) --and I can only --logically-- presume that the USAF does too.

NHQ (and all subordinate eschelons) know(s) that members would be loathe to take off from work/family on short/no notice for a mere exercise. No many CAP volunteers are "saving themselves" for the next REDCAP.

Thus, in order in ensure that SOMEONE comes "out to play," SAREVALs must be pre-planned well in advance. No CC (or DO or DOS) in their right mind would fail to handpick every possible element of their operation with such foreknowledge. Hence, it ceases to be a legitmate assessment of CAP capabilities and devolves into a Quixotic charade.

It teaches us nothing except how to cheat on the spirit of the evaulation process. It assess nothing but our success in that cheating ... the USAF's score is therefore --effectively-- nothing but a theatrical "review."

What's sad (and ironic), though, is that wings still fail to achieve the highest possible score when graded (inexplicably, some even FAIL ) --even after stage-managing virtually everything concerned with the event.

Friends, until CAP has the courage to upset some of its "darling" ES personnel with reallife no-notice exercises and random USAF evaluations of same, we'll never know (nor will the USAF) what CAP's actual ES/Operation capabilities are and where improvements need to be made. IMHO, we stay "fat, dumb, and happy" and that's just what NHQ, the regions/wings ... and perhaps even the USAF wants.

And, that's how it'll remain ...

[bosshawk]

I have been out of the net for a couple of weeks, due to a trip to the East Coast and overload on humidity.

Wing94(I think) hit the nail on the head on the mess that transpired at the practice SAR Eval at Castle.  What I was referring to was that the only successes were due to several very experienced guys stepping in and making things happen.  The concept of the main base and two remote bases was a disaster and that was acknowledged by most folks.  The IC and his staff were not my favorite people and they did not cover themselves in glory.  I was there and the IC wasn;t seen in the flesh for the entire day: he stayed hidden in his little enclave with his henchmen. There weren't enough tasks to utilize more airplanes and there weren't enough ground teams available to make a squad-sized assault.   I understand that lots of changes are going to be in place for the real thing next weekend.

For whatever reason, we seem to be able to pull some form of success out of messes.  Maybe the AF feels sorry for us.  I certainly hope so.

If not, we will go back to the drawing board and some heads may roll.

[ZigZag911]

Chaplaindon makes some excellent points.

Realistically, we can't expect people to take off work/school for a SAREVAL.

However, to add reality to the mix, what if it was really short notice?

What I have in mind is this: a wing will be notified they will be evaluated in a certain 'quarter' (Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun, etc).

Some weekend morning (or even Friday evening) comes a call out of the blue to an IC chosen at random activating the exercise.

Now we'll start to see how CAP can really respond!

[arajca]

What I have seen done is an "Availability Exercise".

Wing/CC draws IC name out of hat, hits with a dart, or other random selection method.

At some time during the next week, the wg/cc calls that IC and gives them a set time frame to find out which aircrews, gt's, and base staff are available and for how many operational periods.

IC calls wg/cc at specified time and reports in.

No one actually goes anywhere. For most members, involvement is swift and non-intrusive.

Wing commander sends out wing-wide email with results with two days.

[SAR-EMT1]

Combine the two and structure it so that you conduct this poll both in the daylight as well as in darkness. Availibility WILL be linked to work/.weekday/weekend

[Larry Mangum]

Washington had theirs this last weekend and received an Excellent.   The evaluation actually started on the 15th with receipt of tasking to photograph 42 different facilities for Home land Security, followed on the 20th with an additional 19 high priority photo tasking.  The SAR portion of the evaluation begin on Friday, the 22nd with the stand up of a full mission base.  On Saturday the wing responded to a missing aircraft and the simulated explosion of a ferry terminal.  All photo taking where accomplished prior to the customers deadline and the missing aircraft was found by the ground teams.   All this was accomplished despite the evaluation teams effort to distract or disrupt the mission staff. Some of the tricks played by the evaluators included, removing the Incident Commander from the base; having the High Bird go silent; and a evacuation of mission base.

[SARPilotNY]

I have a friend in the SF Bay area that said California earned a marginal at their Eval.  He said a CAP crew flying  the Air Force busted a restricted airspace and officially went missing and was a subject of an AFRCC mission.  The base actually shut down because this guy stopped to have lunch without getting any permission from the base.  No wonder!  Now the Wing CC is demanding that CA be upgraded to a Sat rating. Good Luck!  I also heard that they never were able to send any pictures back via ARCHER or SDIS, the Ops section chief went missing for two hours during the mission to have lunch and the IC needed medical attention.  Great Job!  Also they could not find a udf team for a real missing hiker that activated his 406 beacon.  The sheriff had to be called in to drive him to the hospital after waiting all night with the aircraft flying overhead.  Anyone know more about this?

[SJFedor]

TN scored an excellent last weekend. 30-some SDIS targets, 4 route surveys (verbal reports), blood/organ transport, and an ELT search. We were supposed to have a 2nd ELT search and blood/organ transport, but the weather got real bad, real quick in the afternoon, which caused us to cease operations. Got all our SDIS targets and everything else they handed to us done promptly. I served as an Assistant Air Ops Branch Director/Aircrew Briefing Officer for the Eval.

Highlights: 1st aircraft wheels up within 10 minutes of target time, 7 a/c up within 45 minutes.

ELT bird (C172, Becker DF Unit) was dispatched around 8am to start doing a route search for the missing aircraft. "AFRCC" had informed us that they were getting signals on every other sat pass, indicating the ELT was intermittant, they did a route search, some grid searches near the most probable area, etc. The ELT went active for the first time at 10am, and our ELT bird was on top of it within 4 minutes. (Combo of skill and dumb luck, but we were on it fast) GT was there within 30-40 min after first signal heard, everything went well.

SDIS is getting worse and worse. I believe Globalstar, our Satphone provider, did a crap job with their birds, because their functionality is marginal at best. Don't know if it's bad radiation shielding or what, but they continue to decline. We actually got the first 5 targets through the phone into WMIRS, but after that, they took a dump. So, instead, we had our IO (our new Wing Commander) sitting in front of a computer logged into WMIRS, and as soon as an SDIS bird would put down, we'd have a vehicle and a runner get a USB data stick from them, and go direct to the IO for transmittal to WMIRS and our "customer", which was both the USAF Eval team and the local county EMA.

The Eval team didn't do anything ridiculous to us like tell us a bomb was in the ICP, have a simulated irate victim's relative come in, kidnap our IC, or anything else. They definitely gave us some distractions, but kept it within the realm of reality, which I thought was a nice change. Our only bug, which was an actual problem, was that our 2nd airmobile repeater broke, which meant that once our highbird had to refuel, we had to get creative. We ended up retasking another aircraft in the area that had completed it's mission to stay on station to serve as a relay while the highbird crew came down, refueled, rebriefed, and got back in the air. Total time from the repeater going down to it going back up was about 45 minutes, which was pretty good in my opinion.

We actually did our Eval at the end of a week long exercise with the State EMA simulating a major earthquake along the New Madrid Fault line, so I think that really helped us. We got all our comm bugs ironed out, the staff got all warmed up, and we impressed TEMA and the Eval team when the time came.


Anyone else have a good story of their Wing's eval this year?

[SeattleSarge]

Having survived a Wing SAREVAL (general staff) in 2005 and having a CAP-USAF guy attached to our squadron, one question comes to mind...

Why aren't SAREVALs monitored by a team from AFRCC instead of CAP-USAF guys from region?  I mean wouldn't it be more useful to have real-world SAR guys evaluating us instead of USAFR officers that may or may not have any SAR experience?  Just wondering how realistic power outages and bomb threats in the command post are?

Just thinking out loud.

-SeattleSarge

[SARPilotNY]

Having survived a Wing SAREVAL (general staff) in 2005 and having a CAP-USAF guy attached to our squadron, one question comes to mind...

Why aren't SAREVALs monitored by a team from AFRCC instead of CAP-USAF guys from region?  I mean wouldn't it be more useful to have real-world SAR guys evaluating us instead of USAFR officers that may or may not have any SAR experience?  Just wondering how realistic power outages and bomb threats in the command post are?

Just thinking out loud.

-SeattleSarge

Bomb threats and power outages...no   Food poisoning  YES!
They always have the SAREVALs in the HOT zone...in real life...not a good idea.
As far as the AFRCC sending people out, two things...one, they lost many of their best folks when they moved from Langley and two, they are more like "dispatchers" vs. line folks.  I think many of the USAFR do a good job, they have a fair understanding of ICS and CAP, members from other wings are good, but may bring along a bias.   I have had county and state "experts" with the eval team but they never had "voting" powers.    Now it not just SAR, but HLS, CD, DR...

[SeattleSarge]

Bomb threats and power outages...no   Food poisoning  YES!
They always have the SAREVALs in the HOT zone...in real life...not a good idea.
As far as the AFRCC sending people out, two things...one, they lost many of their best folks when they moved from Langley and two, they are more like "dispatchers" vs. line folks.  I think many of the USAFR do a good job, they have a fair understanding of ICS and CAP, members from other wings are good, but may bring along a bias.   I have had county and state "experts" with the eval team but they never had "voting" powers.    Now it not just SAR, but HLS, CD, DR...

Sorry about that previous posting....

Well, what about using folks from a USAF Rescue Squadron?  We have one down in Portland, OR.  Seems like it would be nice to develop a relationship anyway...

Just more thinking..

-Seattle Sarge

[SARPilotNY]

Bomb threats and power outages...no   Food poisoning  YES!
They always have the SAREVALs in the HOT zone...in real life...not a good idea.
As far as the AFRCC sending people out, two things...one, they lost many of their best folks when they moved from Langley and two, they are more like "dispatchers" vs. line folks.  I think many of the USAFR do a good job, they have a fair understanding of ICS and CAP, members from other wings are good, but may bring along a bias.   I have had county and state "experts" with the eval team but they never had "voting" powers.    Now it not just SAR, but HLS, CD, DR...

Sorry about that previous posting....

Well, what about using folks from a USAF Rescue Squadron?  We have one down in Portland, OR.  Seems like it would be nice to develop a relationship anyway...

Just more thinking..

-Seattle Sarge

No need to be sorry....
The best to evaluate us...is us.   But that would be the fox guarding the chicken ...well you know.

[wingnut]

Cowabunga Globalsat

they put four sats up, but me think I reeed they be for Australia and New Zealand, we be left in cold. SDIS??

Good  Re con Photograph's can only be used in large files, remember SDIS is a very small emailed clip. CAWG will be hosting an on Line Photo class real soon. In my experience many of the photo's are poor, blurry, out of focus or unsuitable for the customer

anyone hear whats up with Pacr Evals

[SARPilotNY]

I have seen very few high quality photos from an aircraft.  I have seen where members have sent shots taken from a cell phone camera from a moving aircraft a thought they were photos our customers would expect.  We need a standard so our folks have an understanding of what would be expected.  An on line course would be a good start.

[isuhawkeye]

Iowa spent some of its appropriation to outfit each of our aircraft with a standardised camera.  This allows us to develop a consistant training platform with a consistant product.

[floridacyclist]

You can see some good comparisons of aerial and ground-based RECON photos at http://www.floridadisaster.org/eoc/eoc_Activations/Charley04/Reports/CharleyPics.htm . Incidentally, I would say that 90% of all of them are from CAP and most of the ground shots are from our team.

Considering the customer for those pics, I would say that CAP is very capable of turning out a pretty decent product.

[isuhawkeye]

and here is an archive of Iowa's recon


http://www.iawg.cap.gov/videoimaging/default.asp

[smgilbert101]

In reading this thread, I've noticed that very little thought is given to the fact that the USAF is our customer and a big one at that.  That organization is itself pretty good at Search and Rescue and I would challenge any one of you to measure yourselves against their pararescue organization and see how well you "measure up". 

I've also noticed that there tends to be alot of venting in general, including venting in front of cadets, without a constructive suggestions.  Is this the leadership example we want to set?  Is this an example of professionlism?  If I talked about my customers this way I would loose them and get fired.

If we wish to improve our emergency services organization I would suggest that our more experienced members work towards actually updating and organizing the emergency services ciriculum.  I recent weeks, I have gone through all of the material on the national website.  I don't see where it is that much different than what I saw in the 70's.  And by the way, yes, I'd be happy to help with that.  I would suggest that every member start taking the ICS courses and that some of them should be MANDATORY (I have comleted 9 of them).  That is the program being adopted by our customers and if our ES teams are not well versed in ICS and NIMS they are going to look foolish in a large scale disaster.  My own personal opinion is that if you do not have the time to take the self-paced training, you are not qualified to do the job.  If you do not actually train to perform the job, you are not qualified to do the job in the real world.  However, neither ICS nor NIMS will teach any SAR team how to actually do their jobs, they only provide a framework.

I would suggest that there be specific training manuals, operations manuals, and courseware targeted towards training members in the individual specialties.  I would suggest that regulations not be the single source for training materials (regulations are rules, not training tools).  Our customers do this, why can't we?  How come the training material used by our SAR schools isn't available to all of the members?  If such material were available, it could be adopted more widely.

I would suggest that alot of this training could start at squadron level (you don't need a mission number to train).

I would suggest that neighboring squadrons get together on a regular basis for weekend training (again, you don't need a mission number).

I would suggest that you work with local ES organizations to train and understand how they work (are we to good to work with anyone else)?

Emergency Services is not about flying.  Aircrews perform search and recon.  Ground crews perform search and rescue.  We do not have helicopters, we do not have parachutists.  By today's standards, "Aerial Search and Rescue" is a bit of a misnomer.  Although I do not at all discount the invaluable role the aircrews play in ES, we must always remember that the people on the ground must always be the core of ES.  Our most public role in disaster services is the ground teams, yet they seem to get very little attention or real training. 

We must look forward in our mission.  Although ELT searches are our bread and butter in ES, that will probably not continue into the future.  Technology will see to that.  There are alot of very well trained, very talented people in our organization and I for one hope that they will continue to step forward.  If they need help, I will step forward and do what I can.

As someone who has worked ES as a cadet now as a senior member, as an active duty soldier and as a private citizen, I will say that if you are too good to train, I do not want you on my team because you will be either too rusty, out of shape, or have the wrong atitude.  I would welcome any motvated indivdual who is willing to learn what they don't know and teach what they do know.

[capchiro]

I would say that most of our work is done in the air search and recon mode and not as much at the ground search and rescue mode.  More ground is covered in the air than on the ground and we do our best good there.  Our ground teams are directed a lot by the air teams and when they do reach a site, it is usually for safekeeping until someone else gets there.  We can do very little first aid of a very deep nature.  We expect professional rescue personnel to be near at hand with full equipment and waiting for our call.  We are na auxiliary of the Air Force and as such should place a certain amount of emphasis on air work.  The Air Force gives us aircraft and not so much in the way of 4X4's, ambulances, or all terrain vehicles, or good compasses for ground work, or even direction finding equipment for ground searches.  There are local volunteer search teams that work with dogs and the community to do almost nothing but ground searches.  That is not one of our main directives.  We are also set up to work as the airborne eyes of homeland security to locate and record disasters/terrorism from the air.  We do aerial surveillance for drugs/narcotics, but we don't do ground searches for same.  Our ground search and rescue capabilities and needs are slowly dying off and that's okay.  We have plenty on our plate doing what we need to do and can do without adding anymore tasks to the basket.  I know there are a few find a year by ground crews, but is it worth the effort to have every squadron training for that once every two year task to the forest??  We have to economize what we have and what we want and need to do.  We aren't special forces, we don't jump from airplanes and we don't stay behind enemy lines for weeks on end.  We attempt to keep people interested in aviation..

[smgilbert101]

Colonel and all,

I never suggested or even hinted or even suggested that any of our personnel are "special forces" or should ever spend time "behind enemy lines for weeks on end".  In fact, I stated exactly the opposite.  Having "been there and actually done that, got the t-shirt", I would say that the vast majority of our membership could not and would not be willing to undergo the type of training required to be "special operations" qualified.  That does not at all lessen their impact on actually saving lives or helping the comunity in times of need.  And yes, I very much take offense at references to "Rambo" or "Green Beret wannabe".   I take great offense to the insinuation that ground teams are not professional.  I have seen many ground teams that are better at "in the forest" rescue than any local or state agency.  They got that way because they trained hard.  Personally, I have invested a great deal of my own income to insure that I had the best equipment available.  I have read, studied and tested in every subject I could gain access to (including and in addition to ES) that supported the needs of my squadron and/or was of interest to me.  We don't do much first aid because we their is no training in first aid.  We have to beg for it.  I'm sure that the EMT trained CAP members will take offense to that statement.

I am greatly concerned over this "us" versus "them" attitude.  I keep seeing this in the message threads and it specifically goes against the leadership qualities we are supposed to teach our cadets and senior members.  If we cannot learn to act as a unified team, we will be out of business.  The "we're a flying club" and "it's all about the planes baby" comments I've seen are going to cost this organization members.  We, as senior members and officers are supposed to set a good example an encourage our membership to persue the activities our membership is interested in within the scope of our operations.  By doing this we violate some of the most basic principles of professional military ethics.  A key recruiting tool is ES, berating or not ACTIVELY supporting people for joining and persuing their professional development efforts outside of flying (i.e. communications, operations, ground teams, information technology) is unprofessional.  Bad mouthing our customers instead of working with them to make a program better is unprofessional.  In the USAF as well as all of the other branches of the military, this kind of public behavior would be grounds for a courts marshall.  In all of the years I lived on USAF bases, I never witnessed any member of the USAF say anything remotely negative about their ground units; especially their rescue/SAR assets.  In fact, quite the opposite.  I have seen USAF aircrews state that they sleep better knowing that the PJ's are there.  I can remember hearing pilots talking about being glad that CAP was there (they didn't know I was a member).  Maybe we should follow their example within our own organization.  In closing, I'm really getting tired of hearing that the USAF is all about airplanes.  The facts today do not support that conclusion.  The facts support that most USAF personnel are NOT aircrews.  That has not been the case for decades.  Did we forget about the missile crews?  Where they not USAF as well?  I will agree that the most high profile career field in the USAF is their aviation assets, but aviation assets alone do not constitute an Air Force.

In fact, It is my understanding that the majority of our ES "bread and butter" work is performed by ground assets.  However, I have repeatedly seen those assets treated like fair haired children.  I strongly disagree with the concept that ground teams dying off is okay.  Your most dedicated members in CAP are the one willing to get their hands dirty, any time, any place.  It is exactly that attitude and lack of support that has placed us in the predicament we now face.  The ground teams don't get much in the way of support because they have very little support.  That is very much in evidence.  Have we ever considered that ground based ES is dying because we killed it?  I know of at least one example in the northwestern US where another organization was created as a result of our lack of attention to ES.

Having been through all six hurricanes in Central Florida, I would have loved to see Civil Air Patrol in the community.  I can tell you that the residents, the actual victims, would have loved to see CAP members helping in the community.  Only the EOC's knew that CAP was in the air; that does not help us in our recruiting efforts.  After Hurricane Charlie, the county ES organization as a whole was despised for their lack of action because of their "paper" training.  To be quite honest, nobody knew who CAP was and quite frankly didn't care that our organization was flying photo recon.  They cared about receiving real tangible assistance. The local, state and federal authorities as well of volunteer organizations such as the Red Cross were quickly overwhelmed and unable to provide that assitance.  Entire senior citizen communities (Over 5,000 residences) were forgotten about and received no aid for over a week.  If you really want positive publicity and community support, help pass out ice, help find people in need in the community, help clear streets, help out at the shelters, help organize relief efforts.   Having been through tornados in Oklahoma, I never heard a community say "we don't need your help".  I do know of more than a few communities that were very grateful for our assistance.  Having been a member of CAP in the NY Wing, I know of many occasions where CAP aircraft could not perform searches because of terrain and weather.  Rarely was I ever directed by aircraft and there are many documented cases where a find could have never been made as a result of air assets.  Are we going to tell customers that we can't or won't help because of weather? I see very little evidence that a significant portion of our missions relate directly to homeland security or drug interdiction. 

Economize?  Aircraft are extremely expensive to maintain and operate.  Gone are the days when general aviation was affordable to the middle class.  Gone are they days when flying a small plane was exciting to the masses.  In fact, our own aerospace industry has left as bad taste in the general public's mouth; especially post 9-11.  Even in schools, aerospace education can be a hard sell in many communities.  I would suggest that PLB's will put a very large dent in our air search offerings to our customers.  Technology is going to render traditional ELT searches obsolete.  Programs like ARCHER are in their infancy and I see very little in the way of training in the art of recon or intelligence gathering. If we do not expand our role to address modern day ES needs of the community, our numbers will decrease.  Aircrews can't run EOC's in a Cessna.  A large percentage of our cadets (and seniors) want to particpate in ES and possess a strong desire to help in the community.  My cadets want to help people more than they want to fly.  And they love to fly.  Take away ground ES and recruiting cadets (and seniors who are not pilots) will be almost impossible.  They will go to CERT instead.  And yes, I have witnessed prospective volunteers/members choose CERT over CAP because they had as one person put it "a real training program".

Have we considered actually teaching survival skills again?  CAP could create a revenue generating program to teach basic survival classes (especially to aviation community) so that we could increase the chances of a "save" vs. a "find".  The said fact is that most people don't know how to "survive" anymore.

Again, I will absolutely not and never will place myself above any aircrew.  I greatly value their role, I have worn aircrew (scanner) wings on my CAP uniform in the past.  I remember many instances where aircrews airdropped supplies to ground teams and actively supported them in addition to performing cordoned searches.  Unless things have changed, an aircrew does not get credit for a "find" until it is verified by a ground based asset.  Take away the ES ground assets in CAP and the organization will be a small fraction of what it is today.

I am second generation CAP and I know that for many decades we, as an organization, operated in a combined air/ground SAR capability.  I have actually given CPR to three people and two of them survived.  I have treated traumatic amputations from bandaging the wound to locating the body parts and packing them in ice. I will not remain in CAP if it becomes a flyers club.  My cadets will leave CAP if it is a flyers club.  My squadron will cease to exist if it turns into a flyers club. Most of the senior members are in fact pilots and wish to persue other areas of professional development. 

And by the way sir, I am Airborne qualified and I do have many professional qualifications (Outside of CAP) that state my expertise in field craft.

[floridacyclist]

Umm...CAP was pretty busy on the ground during Charley....

http://bbs.trailersailor.com/forums/tsarchives9/index.cgi/read/354335

[smgilbert101]

Not in Marion County...

[BillB]

Gene, CAP may have been busy wehere YOU were. But here CAP wasn't used because CAP in the State EOC wouldn't allow the County to use them after the County asked Tallahassee for CAP assistance in food distribution. . So who showed up to hand out MREs, ice and water in varios locations in the county? the Junior Marines and Boy Scouts. The original request to the County for CAP came from USAF Reservists activated and assisting the County. I witnessed the events working with the County as a radio operator.

[floridacyclist]

I have witnessed some of that. Certain members will not accept jobs that aren't glamorous enough because they're holding out for The Big One, forgetting that not everyone is even allowed to serve on a RECON team or can go around shutting off ELTs.

[SARPilotNY]

I would bet that most ELTs are found by ground/udf teams w/o any aircraft assistance.
I would bet well over 50 percent of  distress finds are located by ground resources.

Most of my ground distress finds were at night or in non flying weather.

I don't know if we keep stats on the above but to say bye bye to the ground folks would be the nail in the coffin for CAP. 


Last bet...we spend almost all of our training dollars on air vs. ground.

OK one more bet...the Air Force evaluates what we do and how we use our aircraft and their "tools" vs. what we do on the ground.

[capchiro]

Actually, most ELT finds are done by UDF ground teams that utilize seniors and cadets with very little training and no need for a 24 or 72 hour pack or survival or rescue or first aid training of any advanced nature.  Most of them are found on airports and the cadet love searching a small airport in the wee hours of the morning with seniors.  This is one of the big things we do for the Air Force.  By getting the local ELT's shut off at the airports quickly, the Air Force can then tell if there are any distress ELT's out and about.  I am not saying we can't or shouldn't train for homeland security or ES, but there are a lot of groups that train in chain saw use and tree removal.  There aren't a lot of people trained and equipped to fly around and provide intelligence to higher ups about where the chain saws and eventual federal funding should go.  So in the long run, although the people need and appreciate the ice and water, when the federal government declares an area to be a disaster area and cuts lose money and federal support for the area based on our contribution, we, too, have done something very important for that community.  As has been said again and again, ES is not a true component of the cadet program.  It is ancillary and should not interfere with a cadets progression through the program.  If a cadet is gungho Es and not making rank or passing aerospace testing, etc, there is a problem and usually it is a reflection of some senior not comprehending the cadet program and working it properly.  Survival skills for cadets are nice, but not necessary for the program.  We only have so many hours and so much money and so many volunteers to work with.  If there is excess time and money, then by all means do more ES, but do the main program first.  As far as SAR Evals, the Air Force doesn't really get too excited about ground teams and definitely not about ground teams that are predominately cadets.  That doesn't mean that they are not good or qualified, it just means the Air Force sees them in a different light.  Using cadets to assist with communications, marshalling, mission assistants and other non-hazardous positions seems to work well.  Having them tromp the woods for 10 hours and then spend the night in the rain with 2 bodies doesn't seem to excite most of the higher-ups and I have to agree.  This scenario doesn't serve anyone, not the cadets, their parents, the deceased, or the program.  The cadet program is open to children from the age of 12 to 21  and there is a vast maturity range in there.  There is plenty of time for them to grow up and dedicate their lives to ES after that if that is what they desire.  In the meantime, it is our duty to administer the program as it is designed.  SAR Eval is also about the Air Force checking to see if we are using their equipment as they wish and they provide very little ES equipment.  We are the eyes of ES, not the ground forces.  The Air Force doesn't attempt to do the job the Marines were designed for.  I have heard many Air Force officers wonder where we get the Army attitude that we have and why we don't have an Air Force attitude.  Surely anyone that has been around both services knows what I am saying.  I have worked many SAR Evals in all areas, ground, air, and mission support and I can tell you that the Air Force is most interested in the high dollar assets.  Again, there are professionals that do ground search and rescue and I call them professionals because they are paid to do so fulltime.  Therefor, they are bound to be better trained and equipped than we are.  No one is better trained or equipped for our role from the air however.

[Dragoon]

So true.  We are an aviation based organization.  When I was a younger soldier, I fought against this.  Especially as a former cadet, since cadets are all about ground team.

But that was just me, trying to make CAP into something it wasn't.

Lots of volunteer orgs do ground work, but CAP is one of the few to provide air assets.

No organization can be all things to all people.  But they durned well better focus on being excellent at their core competency, and not get sidetracked into niches best filled by others.

As the last CAP-USAF commander was fond of saying "We can do anything - but we can't do everything."

Sure, not being the be all and end all of ground SAR will cost us members.  So will not allowing firearms.  So will not having SCUBA SAR teams.  So what?

Do we want to be the biggest?  Or do we want to be the best at what we do?  It's extremely hard to do both.  It it was easy to do it all, America wouldn't have a separate USAF, USN, USMC and USAF.

[ZigZag911]

Once again Dragoon puts it well...we simply cannot be "all things to all men"...so let's focus on doing what we can do with excellence, professionalism, and an environment as safe as possible in the conditions that call for ES response.