USAF SAR Evals, Are They Helpful?

[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.