LRP class

[WoodlandSARman]

What do you guys think about a Long Range Patrol (search) class?

From what I have noticed in CAP MOST GT's can only stay out in the boonies/woods for a short amount of time on missions or exercises.

This is because of a few things,

Conditioning

Gear

Supplies

There is allready an IN wing Ranger/technical rescue school being started and a few of us just started talking about a LRP class. Myself (one of the three group ES officers for the wing) and two maybe three former and current ARMY. All with backgrounds in SF, Ranger, Infantry, and Air Assault and are CAP members. We would be able to teach extended time searching on foot (missing person searches would be best with this) by teaching what gear to take and not to take, conditioning, basic roping (can use it quite a bit in this state), supplies, water crossing (slow current, not deep, only when you have to ect ect), advanced search techniques, ect ect.


MOST GT members that have been in it for a while can have 72 hour gear and not carry a full pack during the summer. I can keep enough stuff in my big camel back to supply me for at least 3 days not including water that I would have to refill. My 72 is pretty much my 24 now and does not weigh much.
If you had teams that were trained to be out longer then just a few hours and fit enough to cover a lot of ground we would be a lot more effective when it comes to missing persons in the woods. Some of the parks around here are large enough that if you get REALLY lost you could be in them for days.

Some say team effectiveness goes down but with most good teams I have seen as long as you take breaks you can stay out for a long time. Its just lack of water and heavy gear that slows people down or limits them. I and others can carry our gear plus 100+ quarts of water (would have to refill threw purification) and go for 3 days on the other gear and the water weighs more then the rest of the gear. I am not saying that the team would plan to go out and not come back for 3 days but if you have a missing person and have teams trained and equipped to go out on foot and not come back for a looonng period of time then it would be very effective because you would not have to worry as much about rotating teams as much in and out.

You may call me crazy but I know it can be done. I have been on teams that walked into the woods in the heat in the morning and did not come out till the late afternoon and we were still very effective and took another practice mission later. I have seen other teams do it also.

We would also teach more detailed field craft and survival since there is a real chance that you may need to use it one day in this wing.

Some areas around here in some of the forests you cant get to with a car or truck and would have to walk in and go a few miles and when I say a few I mean a LOT and they are also state forests/parks.

[RogueLeader]

I'm not sure how much I would be able to use it, but I would love to take it.  I think that I could learn alot from the class.  I love the outdoors, and this looks like it would be very enjoyable- yes I love to hike :angel:

[lordmonar]

CAP GT and everyone elses only stay out for a short period of time...because that is all they need to be out.

No team should ever be on "duty" for more than 12 hours.  The 24 hour pack is simply there if case you get caught after dark and it is safer to bivy in place than to hike out to the road to go back to base camp.

LRPs won't teach you anything that you "need" to know as a CAP GT member.

[DHollywood]

I'm a paratrooper and as proud of my Blue as I am, there is nothing in the infantry bible or the concept of LRP that in my opinion relates to GSAR.

Yeah, its fun to go get smoked in a hua school all over again, but realistically, infantry, ranger and such are not the kind of skills needed for a long term GSAR mission.

Besides.... there is already a CAP "Ranger School" and at one point in time there was at least one airborne insertion of a GT into a crash site (so sayeth the Hawk Mountain types...)

And I will wear my real Ranger Tab on my CAP uniform before I ever wear a non-combat arms "tab" for GSAR LRP.

God Bless CAP and God Loves the Infantry.   Apples and Oranges.



IMHAO

[davedove]

CAP GT and everyone elses only stay out for a short period of time...because that is all they need to be out.

No team should ever be on "duty" for more than 12 hours.  The 24 hour pack is simply there if case you get caught after dark and it is safer to bivy in place than to hike out to the road to go back to base camp.

LRPs won't teach you anything that you "need" to know as a CAP GT member.

Also, at least for the typical ELT hunt, the objective should be to do as much of the hunt in a vehicle as possible, for one reason -  it's a lot faster.  Now of course some training should be done on foot, but most real missions should emphasize the vehicle search.

[floridacyclist]

I think everyone looks at the LRP or Ranger schools etc and only look at how the training relates to filling out the UDF/GSAR SQTR. They forget the rest.

Past-the-minimum training is not only fun, it builds esprit de corps, teaches useful GT (not necessarily UDF) skills, and trains members in real-world leadership problems as opposed to having them read about them in a book. It gets and keeps members excited about being in CAP and makes them proud of themselves. It also builds inner character and fortitude in ways that are totally consistent with CPPT as long as you don't have someone hazing...which has to be constantly monitored and guarded against. All of these are good things.

Someone mentioned our upcoming survival school (31 Aug-2 Sep) with USAF SERE instructors and said that we weren't teaching anything that cadets would need for the kinds of missions that cadets would be allowed on; this was one of those misinformed individuals that believes that cadets are not allowed on live searches. I pointed out that not only is there sometime a thin line between being the rescuer and the rescuee and that many of our cadets are outdoorspeople who are more likely than the average yuppie to end up in a survival situation whether as part of CAP or not, but also the same attitude of "I will make it one way or another" that you learn to survive in the wilderness also works when you have a 16-semester class load, the rent is due, and your car just broke down, so you can't say that good old fashioned willpower and determination are that far out of fashion.

Besides, if you are on a long search, sometimes it is easier to bivouac in the field and start from there the next morning rather than waste time coming back in then have to start from scratch.

Also, at least for the typical ELT hunt, the objective should be to do as much of the hunt in a vehicle as possible, for one reason -  it's a lot faster.  Now of course some training should be done on foot, but most real missions should emphasize the vehicle search.

Tha danger of concentrating on DF-type missions is that should a real emergency mission (REDCAP, missing child etc) come up  all you have are a bunch of UDF-trained polo-shirt-wearing SMs and similarly-qualified cadets who are totally useless in the swamp.

Note, I do not consider UDF a true emergency...although certain aspects of DF missions provide excellent training for real emergency missions down the road. Our people are all trained for it, but primarily because the qualifications are a part of GT training.

[davedove]

Also, at least for the typical ELT hunt, the objective should be to do as much of the hunt in a vehicle as possible, for one reason -  it's a lot faster.  Now of course some training should be done on foot, but most real missions should emphasize the vehicle search.

Tha danger of concentrating on DF-type missions is that should a real emergency mission (REDCAP, missing child etc) come up  all you have are a bunch of UDF-trained polo-shirt-wearing SMs and similarly-qualified cadets who are totally useless in the swamp.

Note, I do not consider UDF a true emergency...although certain aspects of DF missions provide excellent training for real emergency missions down the road. Our people are all trained for it, but primarily because the qualifications are a part of GT training.

I completely agree with you; we need to be able to do all the different missions.

What I was trying to point out is that many CAP members tend to want to get out and do the ground training out in the woods, but neglect the vehicle aspect of the training (because it's not as "fun").  In any search scenario, vehicles should be used first to at least rapidly narrow the search area.  The bottom line is that you can cover a lot more territory in a vehicle than you can on foot.

[floridacyclist]

I agree, it's also the part that most already know how to do. We also train for vehicle operations every time we take the cadets on a field trip, one of them gets handed a gazeteer and told to navigate while another gets the laptop and given various routing assignments.

I don't think even the most hard-core ground team would argue against using vehicles, GPSs, helicopters or anything else that might speed the mission along in a real-world scenario, especially if lives were at stake.

Incidentally, one of my posts I made to our local mailing list was for the need for GPS training. Sure, we are all very proud of our ability to plot azimuths and perform pace counts, but in a real-world or joint exercise, we need to be able to move much more quickly and precisely. During our recent joint missing-persons search with the FD, we used at least 3 different types of GPS data (lat long in 2 formats and UTM) and had to learn how to switch our GPSs on the fly, something that some of the FFs had trouble doing.

[Sgt. Savage]

CAP GT and everyone elses only stay out for a short period of time...because that is all they need to be out.

No team should ever be on "duty" for more than 12 hours.  The 24 hour pack is simply there if case you get caught after dark and it is safer to bivy in place than to hike out to the road to go back to base camp.

LRPs won't teach you anything that you "need" to know as a CAP GT member.

I respectfully beg to differ.

CAPR 60-3 statesthe qualifications for GT as :

Ground Team Member (GTM) – Level 1 (see notes below).
1) Trainee Prerequisites. Satisfy the following to begin training for GTM – Level 1:
a) Qualified GES.
b) Qualified GTM – Level 2.
2) Qualified. Complete all requirements listed in the most current version of the Ground and Urban Direction Finding Team Task Guide for GTM – Level 1.
Note 1: Ground Team Members – Level 1 should be prepared to conduct all facets of ground team operations for at least 72 hours.
Note 2: Commanders or their designees should review ground team training records to determine if current personnel meet the requirements to be qualified in this specialty and approve qualifications in MIMS as appropriate.

t. Ground Team Member (GTM) – Level 2 (see notes below)
1) Trainee Prerequisites. Satisfy the following to begin training for GTM – Level 2:
a) Qualified GES.
b) Qualified GTM – Level 3.
2) Qualified. Complete all requirements listed in the most current version of the Ground and Urban Direction Finding Team Task Guide for GTM – Level 2.
Note 1: Ground Team Members – Level 2 should be prepared to conduct limited ground team operations for up to 48 hours.
Note 2: Commanders or their designees should review ground team training records to determine if current personnel meet the requirements to be qualified in this specialty and approve qualifications in MIMS as appropriate.

u. Ground Team Member (GTM) – Level 3 (see notes below).
1) Trainee Prerequisites. Satisfy the following to begin training for GTM – Level 3:
Qualified GES.
2) Qualified. Complete all requirements listed in the most current version of the Ground and Urban Direction Finding Team Task Guide for GTM – Level 3.
Note 1: Ground Team Members – Level 3 should be prepared to conduct basic ground team operations for up to 24 hours.
Note 2: All personnel qualified as a ground team member prior to issuance of this regulation are automatically qualified to this level.

That having been stated, GT1 and GTL should be able to stay operational for 72 hours or longer. Having done LRP and LRSD work, I think that many of the challenges of such an experience would be great for a GT.

[WoodlandSARman]

With all do respect.

Anyone in the INF, Rangers, SF, ect ect gets good feildcraft and survival training. More then CAP. These guys are not going to train us to go kill or go on SAD missions. They are going to teach advance searching and survival.

YES, we do use the GT vans and trucks as much as we can, you would be stupid not to. However, there are some areas like say Hoosier national forest that you can only go so far with a van or truck and still have more miles to go. The regs clearly state that a GTM3 must be able to go out for at least 24 hours.

Even if the team goes out for 12 hours when is the last time you say a GT go out for that long in the woods or even in a van/truck on a SAR ex?

This type of training would help us have a better relationship with the local state parks also.

There is also hardly any SAR dog training unless you go to NESA. I know and have the phone number for the local director of homeland security and runs the urban SAR school and the search dogs. I can't tell you how many times I could have used dogs in the past and did not due to no contact and lack of training until now.

There is a lot of people out there with contacts and backgrounds that want to help and we need that.

WE NEED BETTER AND MORE SURVIVAL TRANING, PILOTS AND AIR CREW WANT IT ALSO!!!!!!!!!!!

If you knew I former Vietnam LRRP/Ranger/Green Beret that really wanted to start a LRP class you would be insaine as a GTM not to do it.

[Pylon]

With all do respect.

It's "with all due respect."

Anyone in the INF, Rangers, SF, ect ect gets good feildcraft and survival training. More then CAP. These guys are not going to train us to go kill or go on SAD missions. They are going to teach advance searching and survival.

YES, we do use the GT vans and trucks as much as we can, you would be stupid not to. However, there are some areas like say Hoosier national forest that you can only go so far with a van or truck and still have more miles to go. The regs clearly state that a GTM3 must be able to go out for at least 24 hours.

Even if the team goes out for 12 hours when is the last time you say a GT go out for that long in the woods or even in a van/truck on a SAR ex?

This type of training would help us have a better relationship with the local state parks also.

There is also hardly any SAR dog training unless you go to NESA. I know and have the phone number for the local director of homeland security and runs the urban SAR school and the search dogs. I can't tell you how many times I could have used dogs in the past and did not due to no contact and lack of training until now.

There is a lot of people out there with contacts and backgrounds that want to help and we need that.

WE NEED BETTER AND MORE SURVIVAL TRANING, PILOTS AND AIR CREW WANT IT ALSO!!!!!!!!!!!

If you knew I former Vietnam LRRP/Ranger/Green Beret that really wanted to start a LRP class you would be insaine as a GTM not to do it.

As was already noted, CAWG is hosting the Cadet Survival School.  They can do it, so can you.  It starts with core of a few dedicated planners.  If you feel it's important, make it important.

Let us know when you've got something worked up, and we can help disseminate the word about the training.

[WoodlandSARman]

Yeah I just realized this sites spell checker does not work that well and thanks for the correction.

I will be seeing the group commander tonight and will let you guys know what we decide. I posted up in the aviation section about a ground survival school also.

[davedove]

The difference between the 12 hour duty day and the 72 hour field capability, is that the team must be prepared to be in the field, without a resupply, for the three days.  It doesn't mean they are continuing operations for 72 hours straight.  You operqte for up to 12 hours, then set up camp and rest for the rest of 24 hours.  Then the next day, you start all over.  After 72 hours, either fresh supplies are brought to you, or you return to civilization (or the mission base) for more supplies.

[WoodlandSARman]

True but when was the last time you saw a team that was active and searching for 12 hours?

[floridacyclist]

Do you mean that as in "When was the last time you saw a team stay out that long?" or "When was the last time a team went back in after only 12 hours?"

[Sgt. Savage]

The difference between the 12 hour duty day and the 72 hour field capability, is that the team must be prepared to be in the field, without a resupply, for the three days.  It doesn't mean they are continuing operations for 72 hours straight.  You operqte for up to 12 hours, then set up camp and rest for the rest of 24 hours.  Then the next day, you start all over.  After 72 hours, either fresh supplies are brought to you, or you return to civilization (or the mission base) for more supplies.

I just go by what the reg says: " Level 1 should be prepared to conduct all facets of ground team operations for at least 72 hours."

All Facets and at least are important words. Might be left up to interpretation but, if what you say is true, if a person is more than 12 hours away from the nearest road, they're screwed and we won't go after them.

[WoodlandSARman]

Do you mean that as in "When was the last time you saw a team stay out that long?" or "When was the last time a team went back in after only 12 hours?"

The last time you saw a team go out active for 12 hours and not come back. I have never seen it. The most I have seen is training days at NESA but its with a lot of down time and I would consider it more training then active searching.

[davedove]

The difference between the 12 hour duty day and the 72 hour field capability, is that the team must be prepared to be in the field, without a resupply, for the three days.  It doesn't mean they are continuing operations for 72 hours straight.  You operqte for up to 12 hours, then set up camp and rest for the rest of 24 hours.  Then the next day, you start all over.  After 72 hours, either fresh supplies are brought to you, or you return to civilization (or the mission base) for more supplies.

I just go by what the reg says: " Level 1 should be prepared to conduct all facets of ground team operations for at least 72 hours."

All Facets and at least are important words. Might be left up to interpretation but, if what you say is true, if a person is more than 12 hours away from the nearest road, they're screwed and we won't go after them.

Well, you always have to remember that safety of the team and its members is the number one priority.  Recovery of a victim is number two.  It's a bit cold when it's stated that way, but it is true.  Unlike in the military, where completing the mission is number one.

[floridacyclist]

The 72 hours includes time in a camp resting....and we sent GTs to MS for longer than that.

Lighten up a little guy..you have some great ideas, don't make folks tune you out as too far over the edge.

There's nothing wrong with having some fun with the training program as long as your basic standards are met, no rules are broken and nobody gets hurt.

[Sgt. Savage]

Well, you always have to remember that safety of the team and its members is the number one priority.  Recovery of a victim is number two.  It's a bit cold when it's stated that way, but it is true.  Unlike in the military, where completing the mission is number one.

2 Years ago at our Wing Conference some speaker, whos name I forget, made a great point. He said if safety were priority one, we wouldn't do what we do as it is dangerous. We do what we do as safely as we can, while compleing the mission.

[davedove]

Well, you always have to remember that safety of the team and its members is the number one priority.  Recovery of a victim is number two.  It's a bit cold when it's stated that way, but it is true.  Unlike in the military, where completing the mission is number one.

2 Years ago at our Wing Conference some speaker, whos name I forget, made a great point. He said if safety were priority one, we wouldn't do what we do as it is dangerous. We do what we do as safely as we can, while compleing the mission.

Very true, but there does still come a point where it is decided that it is too dangerous to attempt the mission.  CAP does it all the time, grounding planes because of weather, keeping ground team off of dangerous roads, etc.

[cnitas]

Dave,
Please ignore these guys.  I do not want to deal with the fallout with squadron or group if you have an 'incident' 

You guys talk big talk, but in reality, we are essentially a search and recovery operation.  I do not want to explain to a parent why their son or daughter was in an accident after a 'hard core' officer spent 20 hours straight doing a line search on a mountain and then drove the team home.

12 hours out of 24 is more than enough time for a team to be on the clock actively performing GT.  Get your rest and then do 12 more hours.  Rinse, repeat, for as long as you need to be out there.

[Flying Pig]

We just flew out and picked up 4 SAR guys today who spent the night at 9000 ft. in the Sierras after locating a missing hiker.  These guys are in awsome shape and well trained, and they were ready to punch out and hit the rack.  I cant even think of taking cadets on a mission like that.  Of course, my county doesnt utilize CAP either.  None of the SAR guys/gals were prior military or had a "Ranger" or "LRP" course taught by Green Berets.

Aside from land nav and survival, being a former Infantryman myself, I dont see what this school would teach that isn't already out there.  You want some SAR advice?  Here it is.....Stay in the best physical shape possible.  Ive been on a few SAR missions where these big fat potato sacks are huffing and puffing with all of the latest gear strapped to them, but they cant walk more than a mile above 5000ft.

One of my biggest concerns with the effectiveness of CAP ground teams is their follow up training.  Its one thing to go to a rappel course.  Its another thing to be able to set up a rope system 2 years later.  That is where CAP lacks.  Im not crossing a river with a rope system someone set up unless that person is someone who does often.

[SARMedTech]

I had a very good SAR/man-tracking instructor in the desert Southwest that used to say "if you leave an area, you havent ever covered it" essentially meaning that if you have searched a particular grid area and then "abandon" it at night fall, you may as well research it again at first light. As we all know, the golden rule is "stay with the plane" but we also know that many pilots and other lost persons for that matter do not stay in one place...they wander, they set out on their own. Another good reason for well-stocked survival gear: the more you have with you, the less likely you are going to be to leave the site where you crashed. Common sense says that a lost person will stay in one spot or if they dont that they will trek out in a straight line, but of course, common sense applies to very few lost people.

Having the ability to stay in the field for longer periods of time is definitely something that CAP should train on more. Ive been on camping trips on the BWCA region where I was dropped of by plane, hiked to another point and picked up 7 or 10 days later. With proper training and lightweight gear that is meant to do what you need it to do, there is no reason why a long stay in the field cant be like sitting in your living room. Things like high calorie low sugar foods, water and purification ability and the ability to change socks and or shoes as they become wet (changing footgear also prevents blisters. I carry a pair of lightweight hiking boots and wear a pair, changing about every 8 hours) can allow you to function indefinitely. Survival skills like basic trapping and knowing what plants are and are not edible extends your time in the field even longer. The ability to get clean so that your smell doesnt draw bugs like mosquitoes and flies is also helpful so I always carry unscented wipes, and preferably rubbing alcohol. Its also good to remember that things that make you feel good will improve your survival rate. The ability to start fires and drink non-caffeinated things like cocoa and warm herbal tea as well as the ability to heat your food can go a long way in steeling your resolve to keep on keeping on. I also always carry my favorite flannel shirt or something of the sort that I can wear at night. Again, that element of the familiar and comforting adds untold fortitude for longs stays afield.

I think a LRP school or class is a good idea. The best SAR organizations I have worked with are also well trained for long field stays. I would love this sort of CAP class and would certainly take it. I would even go so far as to say that it should be a GT requirement since the same skills that make long trips doable can make short ones much more tolerable.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I agree with most of the folks here.  I was an Army officer, and just basic skills like "Sending up a count" are skills that CAP usually doesn't cover.  Learning to make yourself comfortable in the field is another valuable skill.

I'm not sure the standard should be 72 hours out hard bush-beating, but 72 hours of continuous operation, and by that I mean establishing temporary camps at night is part of GT operations.

An IC should be able to pre-position a GT into an area where the target is likely without worrying if the team knows how to set up a camp. 

Even if you train using the vehicle as a part of your operations like MP's and armored forces do, the team should, if fully qualified, be able to operate for an extended period.

[WoodlandSARman]

SARMedTech said it all.


I am not to far over the edge, I do things by the book and as safley as i can but remember what we do IS dangerous and CAP people DO get killed doing this.

I have been with the GT thing long enough to see that most GT's can't operate very long, to much gear, can't hydrate well.

They need to be tought how to only take what they need, how to wear everything, how to stay effective and operate for 12 hours (NOT TAKING 4 HOUR BREAKS). Every wing has particular natural issues to deal with. We have some pretty big nasty state parks and forests that have a lot of people get lost in them pretty deep.

We do more then just ELT searches guys and gals. It drives me nuts how we have all these SAR EX's and its 99% missing person searches. It is MUCH harder to find a missing person then to find a ELT! Planes stay put and you have a signal most of the time. People don't.
There are allways people who think you should stick to basic training and go looking for an ELT. There are others that know teams need more advanced training to be more effective. If you look around at some of the threads on this site others wings have done classes like this.
An IC should pre-position a GT good. What happens when the closet you can get them is a few MILES away? Lots of areas in this sate were that is a VERY real reality.

This job we do must be done safley but even the safest people have been and get killed. Its the nature of the beast. We NEED more advanced training and better survival training. To many people rely to much on radios and GPS.

12 hours IS more then enough time but in my time in GT's I have yet to see a team active for even 6 hours let alone 12. I have seen it with 6 but there was TONES of down time sitting in the truck/van.

We have one GT in this wing that is VERY well trained and is VERY effictive, the TL is also a Nurse and former ER paramedic, they go above and beyoned in training, they are very safe but very effective and they are the best in the wing! They pack light and move fast and long very well and safe.

All the mission IC's and all the active GTL's in this wing know each other very well and each team knows each other. We all know each others limits and the IC's know what we can do and still be safe. It makes us VERY effective but safe!

Got the ok from the group commander. Everything is a GO!

[RiverAux]

Well, I think going out for 3 day ground op in the field is always good training for the ground pounders. 

However, I think it is incredibly unrealistic to say something like that would be a strategy CAP would actually utilize during a real search.  I've never heard of a CAP team being sent off into the wilderness with their 72 hour pack for a search with no resupply. 

More realistic would be to set up a basecamp next to a road and then do the search training for 3 days with daily "patrols" going out from the camp.  Heck, don't resupply them if you want to test their ability to pack a real 72-hour pack, but unless you're operating in AK or some other incredibly remote place the CAP camp will be right next to the van they drove from squadron HQ 95+ percent of the time.

 

[lordmonar]

CAP GT and everyone elses only stay out for a short period of time...because that is all they need to be out.

No team should ever be on "duty" for more than 12 hours.  The 24 hour pack is simply there if case you get caught after dark and it is safer to bivy in place than to hike out to the road to go back to base camp.

LRPs won't teach you anything that you "need" to know as a CAP GT member.

I respectfully beg to differ.

CAPR 60-3 statesthe qualifications for GT as :

Ground Team Member (GTM) – Level 1 (see notes below).
1) Trainee Prerequisites. Satisfy the following to begin training for GTM – Level 1:
a) Qualified GES.
b) Qualified GTM – Level 2.
2) Qualified. Complete all requirements listed in the most current version of the Ground and Urban Direction Finding Team Task Guide for GTM – Level 1.
Note 1: Ground Team Members – Level 1 should be prepared to conduct all facets of ground team operations for at least 72 hours.
Note 2: Commanders or their designees should review ground team training records to determine if current personnel meet the requirements to be qualified in this specialty and approve qualifications in MIMS as appropriate.

t. Ground Team Member (GTM) – Level 2 (see notes below)
1) Trainee Prerequisites. Satisfy the following to begin training for GTM – Level 2:
a) Qualified GES.
b) Qualified GTM – Level 3.
2) Qualified. Complete all requirements listed in the most current version of the Ground and Urban Direction Finding Team Task Guide for GTM – Level 2.
Note 1: Ground Team Members – Level 2 should be prepared to conduct limited ground team operations for up to 48 hours.
Note 2: Commanders or their designees should review ground team training records to determine if current personnel meet the requirements to be qualified in this specialty and approve qualifications in MIMS as appropriate.

u. Ground Team Member (GTM) – Level 3 (see notes below).
1) Trainee Prerequisites. Satisfy the following to begin training for GTM – Level 3:
Qualified GES.
2) Qualified. Complete all requirements listed in the most current version of the Ground and Urban Direction Finding Team Task Guide for GTM – Level 3.
Note 1: Ground Team Members – Level 3 should be prepared to conduct basic ground team operations for up to 24 hours.
Note 2: All personnel qualified as a ground team member prior to issuance of this regulation are automatically qualified to this level.

That having been stated, GT1 and GTL should be able to stay operational for 72 hours or longer. Having done LRP and LRSD work, I think that many of the challenges of such an experience would be great for a GT.

You should be able to do the work for a 72 hour period....but you are not in the field for 72 hours.  No one can be effective for straight 72 hour period.  Your 72 hour gear should be left at base camp and you do your 4Rs from it.  You don't need to be humping it for the entire 72 hours!  As I said....you should be in and out in 12 hours.  The 24 hour pack is there to hold you over is something bad happens.

While the training would be fun.....we probably could concentrate our training efforts on more relative aspects of GT.

[SARMedTech]

I think the emphasis should be placed on training and planning and preparing for the worst case scenario. Are we going to need to be in the field for 72 straight hours, probably not. Do we need to be able to if the situation requires it? Yes. We're all familiar with the concept of mission base, but what about the ideas of a base camp? What does it entail? What resources are available there? Can reasonable medical care be rendered there in terms of first aide? Is it situated in such a location as to allow an LZ to be established if necessary? Have we moved far enough away from a road as to make ground evacuation difficult or impossible? Are GT members trained and able to carry out an injured or ill team member of lost person if necessary?

Are we Rangers or Seals or Recon? Of course not? But this is where the ideas of people that may be considered gear geeks or "wannabes" actually become useful. A recent poster said that we rely on the use of electronics and items like GPS way too much. Ive been in the mountains of NM where in certain spots GPS and items like cellular phones are useless. We need to start thinking about things like satellite phones and also moving back to the basics of things like flares and smoke cannisters and basic, good old fashion outdoor skills like being able to read weather, how to deal with exposure to the elements: When I did SAR in the Southwest, those ECW liners for my pants might have seemed like a bulky item to carry during the day when it was 90 degrees, but when the sun went behind the mountains and the temp dropped 40 degrees in a couple of hours and the wind kicked up I was glad to have them.

There is alot we can learn from special operators. Just because we dont carry MP-5s and arent inserted into an LZ in the cover of dark, doesnt mean that we arent tactical operators. GT/SAR work is very much a tactical operation and we need to start getting our heads around that concept. I was recently on a non-CAP SAR in northern IL and Southern Wisconsin and also in a rather large national wilderness area. Just because I dont have the need for a firearm, doesnt mean that there arent things that I need to know how to protect myself against like coyotes, snakes, scorpions, etc. Ive had alot of folks criticize, both constructively and unconstructively, the spec ops medics pack I carry. But when someone gets hurt or ill, Im the person they come to. Ive been laughed at for carrying cans of sterno, but when the only available drinking water is creek water and fire wood isnt easily obtained, the ability to boil water is a great commodity.

Ive spent a good portion of the last 20 years learning to not just survive but to be comfortable and even thrive in climates and landscapes all of the North American continent including the Canadian Arctic and such southern locations as the Tierra del Fuego. We need to stop having the mindset that we are only a plane ride or care ride of helo dust off away for safety and warmth and comfort. What happens when the helo cant get in air or we ourselves become lost. Its a good and reassuring feeling to be able to take off your pack, open it up, establish a camp within an hour and be at home, no matter where you end up. If CAP is to compete with hardcore SAR teams we have to start thinking this way. When I first started spending protracted periods of time outdoors, the sound of thunder and the feeling of rain on the brim of my boonie cap filled me with dread. Not so now. 5 minutes with my pack off getting a change of clothes for the change in weather and Im rucked up and ready to continue.

I truly believe that even outside of the formal training we get through CAP, its incumbent on us to seek out the best survival training we can get. If that means accessing military training when possible, great. If it means getting certified as a WEMT, great. Searching for an ELT is one thing. But when lives hang in the balance of doing our jobs, we need to be able to do them in as many different types of situations as possible. Being able to set snares and knowing when rabbits are edible and when they arent and knowing on site the difference between a vine that will fill your canteen and one that will poison you are not just great add on skills, they are essential. Right now we are largely doing cushy SAR ops, relying on being able to get resupplied when we want to and to get off our feet when we want to. The fact of SAR is that thats not always an option. There is nothing inherently dangerous about a wilderness SAR situation. The danger factor comes in when you dont know how to handle that situation, how to maneuver in it and fear and uncertainly set it and they can kill you quicker than anything.

[WoodlandSARman]

More realistic would be to set up a basecamp next to a road and then do the search training for 3 days with daily "patrols" going out from the camp.  Heck, don't resupply them if you want to test their ability to pack a real 72-hour pack.

 

This is what I am getting at. I am not talking about going out for 3 days and not coming back. I am talking about going on long range "patrols". Teaching people how to go out, pack light, be effective and cover a lot of ground.

[lordmonar]

More realistic would be to set up a basecamp next to a road and then do the search training for 3 days with daily "patrols" going out from the camp.  Heck, don't resupply them if you want to test their ability to pack a real 72-hour pack.

 

This is what I am getting at. I am not talking about going out for 3 days and not coming back. I am talking about going on long range "patrols". Teaching people how to go out, pack light, be effective and cover a lot of ground.

By definition LRPs are not supported by a base camp.

LRP is designed to teach solders how to penetrate deep into contested territory, find, recon and ambush the enemy.

All cool skills and certainly can be used to help CAP.

But if you are talking about setting up "useful" training that CAP Ground Teams can use in the field to help them do their job......I would suggest Boy Scout Camping Merit Badge.  Throw in the Hiking Merit Badge for good measure.  Those are real, useful skills that CAP could really use.  LRP??  I can't think of a single instance that I would have to know how to call in artillery support or set up an L type ambush.

Survival training?  Sure thing!   But LRPs training?  Too much emphasis on "useless" combat skills.

[isuhawkeye]

I'm normally a huge fan of a greater ground team presence, but I cant get behind this one. 

Iowa is a state with a very rural, often remote populace, and we even have some areas difficult to access by vehicle.  Unfortunately I cant support a LRP unit. 

I would support a horse back, snow mobile, or ATV units doing similar work, but thats a different thread entirely.

[Sgt. Savage]

More realistic would be to set up a basecamp next to a road and then do the search training for 3 days with daily "patrols" going out from the camp.  Heck, don't resupply them if you want to test their ability to pack a real 72-hour pack.

 

This is what I am getting at. I am not talking about going out for 3 days and not coming back. I am talking about going on long range "patrols". Teaching people how to go out, pack light, be effective and cover a lot of ground.

By definition LRPs are not supported by a base camp.

LRP is designed to teach solders how to penetrate deep into contested territory, find, recon and ambush the enemy.

All cool skills and certainly can be used to help CAP.

But if you are talking about setting up "useful" training that CAP Ground Teams can use in the field to help them do their job......I would suggest Boy Scout Camping Merit Badge.  Throw in the Hiking Merit Badge for good measure.  Those are real, useful skills that CAP could really use.  LRP??  I can't think of a single instance that I would have to know how to call in artillery support or set up an L type ambush.

Survival training?  Sure thing!   But LRPs training?  Too much emphasis on "useless" combat skills.

Sir, while I have found you to be a reasonable and consistent person, I believe now your being silly. I can't believe that anyone here is advocating strapping a 240C to a 12 year old and teaching them how to react to enemy fire. I believe the intent of the training would be to teach people how to remain tactically functional. Frankly, of all of the GT members I've encountered, less than 25% of them could function after the first 4 hours. When you get caught up in your own misery, you lose focus on the task at hand. How many people here have ever drank iodine treated water from a stream? Some but not many. If you train in a manner that requires you do such things to stay functional, you'll be much less hesitant when you need to.

Reminds me of my first Squad Leader. Sat us down and made us eat a pail of bugs. Most people will wait until they're starving before they resort to survival techniques to stay alive. Not us. After we ate that bucket of bugs, I never had a hesitation about doing it again.

Now, I'm not saying that we should make people eat bugs. I am saying that if you prepare for what you are likely to encounter in a worse case scenario, you stand a better chance of success.

If anything, I think the LRP nomenclature is being used more to describe the situational aspect of the training, not the goal of the unit.

[SARMedTech]

Very well said Sgt. As I said in my posts, SAR is a tactical operation even though its end goal may not be to blow something up. Simply saying that CAP members wont be subjected to the kinds of conditions that would require them to utilize long stay field skills is a ridiculous reasoning for not training them that way. I have been in situations both as a hiker/camper and a SAR operator where a simple, unexpected change in weather made leaving the field, or trying to, more dangerous than staying. But thats because I was prepared to stay. Do we even teach members the proper procedure for boiling drinking water? How long do you boil it?  Covered or uncovered? Do we teach them how to deal with the symptoms and complications of amoebic disentary in the field until adequate medical treatment can be had. To my knowledge we do not. Not to do so is reckless and playing with other people's health and safety. Ive seen members get thirsty and chug and entire bottle of gatorade and then get sick from an electrolyte imbalance because they dont know that current studies show that electrolyte replacers should be cut with water. Ive seen them get sick because they believe that a snickers bar is appropriate high energy food.

The Sgt is right that very few members can last in the field more than 4 hours let alone 12 and heaven forbid there should be a situation which requires an extended stay afield.  There simply is no logical reason for not teaching field survival skills which might keep you alive, healthy and able to continue after more than just a few hours. We spend so much time on how to find a lost person or plane that we forget that we are sending human beings into the field to find them and we assume that the fact that they ate and drank a few hours ago will be sufficient. What will it do to a team who finds themselves in the middle of a necessitated longer field stay (say if they were actually required to stay afield for 72 hours) and then had to care for a sick GTM?  Another good reason that its not good enough to field EMTs or Medics and only allow them protocol and supplies for first aide. A dehydrated members, one suffering from heat stroke or cold exposure or one experiencing altitude related problems (sometimes called AMS or acute mountain sickness) needs more than first aide and they need it faster than outside EMS may be able to arrive. Someone in the throws of full on heat stroke could well die in the 30-40 minutes it might take EMS to access them. They are in an advanced state of shock and that kills people. Its not good enough to simply hope for the best, we have to hope for the best and train and plan and supply for the worst. Most of the ES members of my squadron are good for about 2 hours in the field and we cant assume that the cadets are any better simply because they are younger. Lack of training and proper gear and supply kills people in outdoor situations. At the very least, we should be training people to recognize when they have hit the wall and its time to set up a bivvy and get some sleep, even just a few hours into a search if terrain and climate and weather mandate this. We need to integrate this kind of thinking into GTLs so that they can call mission base and say "I have a team that needs rest, we are stopping and establishing a camp." But its very difficult for them to do that when they have neither the proper skills or supplies. Its great to think we are all going to know how to play SurvivorMan and know how to act like a Canadian survivalist.  But it should also be remembered that he is being tracked by a camera and medical support team and is never more than about 30 seconds from getting help for anything he may need. He can afford to parachute into a wilderness setting with his multi-tool and empty canteen because just off camera are experts waiting to resupply him and treat any medical situations.

Im not former military,but it seems to me that if you take out the firearms and other military aspects of LRP training and focus on the parts that not only help you stay alive but to exist comfortably in the field, you have training that is essential for SAR operators. A 24 pack shouldnt be packed IN CASE you have to stay overnight, but rather with the assumption that you will. In a field environment things can change in the blink of an eye and the difference between those who live and those who dont is the difference in preparation, gear and training. Look at how many GTMs wear jungle boots. The mere presence of combined nylon and leather is a good recipe for feet in bad shape. Our GTs should be wearing foot gear that is meant for long range walking and not just what looks cool. Ive been on SARExs where our time to target and time afield is increased simply because we have to keep stopping so I can treat blisters. The training our GTs currently receive is insufficient, especially as we hope to advance to more ambitious taskings.

[smgilbert101]

I would agree that LRP would be a limited use for squadrons that have no desire to operate outside an urban environment.  However, many of the squadrons don't limit themselves to UDF type tasks.  UDF personnel would however benefit greatly from advanced land navigation courses.  Ever seen the aftermath of a tornado?  Ever notice how all of the street signs are gone?  Hmmm...  I am not picking on UDF, it is truly an art!

Has the Civil Air Patrol done this before??? Yes, absolutely.
Survival training?  You betcha!  for many reasons... In the cadet program it is an enormous self confidence builder.  After going through the USAFA survival course when I was a cadet, I actively used/taught those skills many, many times in the mountains of upstate NY.  The result was better trained ground teams AND better trained aircrews.  The cadets became actively interested in how to interact with their environment.  The aircrews learned about what to "really" do if they found themselves in a bad situation. As a cadet, I loved rappelling and was [darn]ed good at it (we trained in the mountians of upstate New York and PA).  It's a terrible shame that they can't do that anymore.

Many of the military LRP skills could easilly transitioned into the CAP mission.  Yes, ambushes, advanced camoflauge and cover, weapons employment are of little use to CAP. Topics like patrolling, first aid, and equipment preparation are core GSAR tasks.  To illustrate my example, "Calling for artillery fire" could be translated into "Call for Medevac".  LRP teaches advanced land navigation skills which most certainly fit within the scope of CAP.  LRP teaches advanced recon and intelligence skills.  A search line is a CAP example of recon and intel gathering.  The current training barely scratches the surface for this.  Our aircrews use GPS.  Wouldn't it make sense to training the ground teams as well.  It would certainly improve coordination between air/ground teams.  IMHO, so called 'man-hunting" skills should be a required training.  That is essentially the job of a GTSAR team.  Every other SAR organization trains in that art, why shouldn't we?  Every other SAR organization borrows heavilly from military combat arms units, why shouldn't we?  At our disposal, we have tried and tested methods that have been developed and refined over decades of real world situations.  Not using that information should be a crime.  For those of us who have done both jobs in the past, you all know that a large percentage of those skills are applicable to GSAR.  For those of you who have never done both jobs, I would reccommend that you re-read the section on followership in Chapter 1 of the cadet leadership manual.  Two ears, one mouth... If we continue to focus on UDF alone, we may find ourselves out of a job.

For those of you who think that cadets shouldn't be used in a GSAR capacity, I would ask you to take a look around your wing.  I just finshed a SAREX here in Texas last weekend.  I saw several examples of cadets that were so well trained, you could easilly mistake them for PJ's.  It was obvious that their dedication to ES took them well beyond the CAP GT skill sets.  I have seen 12 year old cadets taking FEMA courses.  I think that it is [darn]ed impressive!  Personally, I was [darn]ed proud of them, they are truly a credit to CAP.  I do not think that cadets (as a general rule) should be exposed to bodies.  However, I think we should think [darn]ed hard about imposing restriction after restriction on the cadet program and cutting cadets out of the ES role.  I remember the "bad old" days when cadets recovered bodies; I never saw any examples of PTSD.  They did their job, they knew what to expect, they trained hard and they were keenly aware of what they would face.  Hell, by the time I went go to Infantry school, I found that the materials were fairly easy thanks to CAP. I don't consider myself to be one of the "younger" members (I'm 40 something).  Even though my inseam is still significantly longer than my waist size, I know what my limitations are and I am keenly aware of the fact that there are alot of areas where cadets would be able to run circles around me. I firmly believe that cutting cadets out of ES training, especially advanced ES training, we will cut our own throats as an organization in the long run. It's easier (and more cost effective) to transition cadets into the senior member roles when they come of age than it is to recruit new members.

[WoodlandSARman]

A big thanks to those that are seeing what I am wanting to do and not jumping the gun thinking I want to do search and destroy training or something.

I have been given approval by the DP commander and commander of the group.


Many many teams can go longer then 4 hours. Most I see have way to much gear that they don't need and that slows them down.


WAY to many people in this program that just want to stick with the basics.

[RiverAux]

Simply saying that CAP members wont be subjected to the kinds of conditions that would require them to utilize long stay field skills is a ridiculous reasoning for not training them that way.

There is a point at which the "it could happen" line of reasoning breaks down.  Anything is possible at anytime but you can't train for every possibility.  For example, it is possible that a CAP ground team COULD be asked to hike 15 miles into a wilderness area in the dead of winter to evacuate a live crash survivor weighing 350 pounds who needs to be carried out by stretcher because the blizzard that is going on has all helicopters down.  So, who wants to do this on their next winter SAREX? 

CAP members only have limited time for training, so that training should be focused on LIKELY missions and scenarios.  Keep in mind that in the not so distant future all our ground SAR requirements are going to be ratcheted up to meet national standards so we'll have even less time to use to train for scenarios that just are not going to happen. 

[WoodlandSARman]

Simply saying that CAP members wont be subjected to the kinds of conditions that would require them to utilize long stay field skills is a ridiculous reasoning for not training them that way.

For example, it is possible that a CAP ground team COULD be asked to hike 15 miles into a wilderness area in the dead of winter to evacuate a live crash survivor weighing 350 pounds who needs to be carried out by stretcher because the blizzard that is going on has all helicopters down.  So, who wants to do this on their next winter SAREX? 

I plan to........ Florida wing did this and there is a thread about in in the tall tales section. They did not go that far but it was quite a few miles and had a full sized guy on a back board and they carried him out.

Things don't happen because we are not asked to do them because people know we are not trained, most big state parks don't call CAP for missing person searches because the see us as ELT finders mor ethen anything.

Get people trained for more advanced stuff and the phone will ring more AND out people will be safer for having better training.

[RiverAux]

It is not the fault of CAP's training that you're not getting calls from the state parks.  Our standards are more than sufficient for lost person searches.  The fault is lack of coordination with the park and letting them know what our standards are and showing them that we take these standards seriously. 

[Sgt. Savage]

Simply saying that CAP members wont be subjected to the kinds of conditions that would require them to utilize long stay field skills is a ridiculous reasoning for not training them that way.

There is a point at which the "it could happen" line of reasoning breaks down.  Anything is possible at anytime but you can't train for every possibility.  For example, it is possible that a CAP ground team COULD be asked to hike 15 miles into a wilderness area in the dead of winter to evacuate a live crash survivor weighing 350 pounds who needs to be carried out by stretcher because the blizzard that is going on has all helicopters down.  So, who wants to do this on their next winter SAREX? 

CAP members only have limited time for training, so that training should be focused on LIKELY missions and scenarios.  Keep in mind that in the not so distant future all our ground SAR requirements are going to be ratcheted up to meet national standards so we'll have even less time to use to train for scenarios that just are not going to happen. 

I reject your position. In my wing, we haven't had a GT mission in almost 3 years. Does that mean we should stop training GT members? Likewise, we only use Mission Scanners on SAREX missions and almost never use Mission Observer on real missions. Should we quit training them as well, to focus on what we are likely to do? We continue to train to the highest standard possible. We only settle for 100%.

[WoodlandSARman]

It is not the fault of CAP's training that you're not getting calls from the state parks.  Our standards are more than sufficient for lost person searches.  The fault is lack of coordination with the park and letting them know what our standards are and showing them that we take these standards seriously. 

And trust me... I plan to show them....... and coordinate.

[RiverAux]

I said there was a point at which the argument was ridiculous.  Carrying out ground team training to meet the tasks required for GTM, etc. certainly isn't past that point whether or not you get called on those missions. 

[SARMedTech]

Simply saying that CAP members wont be subjected to the kinds of conditions that would require them to utilize long stay field skills is a ridiculous reasoning for not training them that way.

There is a point at which the "it could happen" line of reasoning breaks down.  Anything is possible at anytime but you can't train for every possibility.  For example, it is possible that a CAP ground team COULD be asked to hike 15 miles into a wilderness area in the dead of winter to evacuate a live crash survivor weighing 350 pounds who needs to be carried out by stretcher because the blizzard that is going on has all helicopters down.  So, who wants to do this on their next winter SAREX? 

CAP members only have limited time for training, so that training should be focused on LIKELY missions and scenarios.  Keep in mind that in the not so distant future all our ground SAR requirements are going to be ratcheted up to meet national standards so we'll have even less time to use to train for scenarios that just are not going to happen. 

I reject your position. In my wing, we haven't had a GT mission in almost 3 years. Does that mean we should stop training GT members? Likewise, we only use Mission Scanners on SAREX missions and almost never use Mission Observer on real missions. Should we quit training them as well, to focus on what we are likely to do? We continue to train to the highest standard possible. We only settle for 100%.

One of the things that I have always admired about men and women that have served in the military is there tendency to be plain-spoken.

The idea that we dont need to train for the "might happens" comes right off the stable floor.

I recently talked to a state emergency management official in a western state (I wont say where so it doesnt seem like I am pointing fingers at that Wing) and he told me that when it comes to SAR operations, he only calls upon CAP as an absolute last resort. He was very clear about his reasoning for this: he stated quite eloquently that even at the Master and Senior and GTL levels, CAP SAR GTs are trained to just about the lowest level possible. He let me know that he would prefer to call on a CERT team before CAP if he had a choice.

When we go on an actual, we are talking about people's lives and it is absolutely idiotic thinking to say that there is any such thing as excessive training. We need to engage in training based on the most extreme situations and scenarios that we can. Its like strength training. If you work constantly with heavy weights and lots of reps, then when you pick up a 5 pound weight, its easy and you do it very well and safely. The fact in emergency services is that an operators first priority is his own safety, then that of his team, then the person he is charged with finding or assisting. Im not recommending rigorous training so we can be all high speed, but there is a reason that seasoned professionals who do nothing but manage emergencies tend to not want to rely on CAP when they have another choice.

River Aux- you say that in a few years time we will be required to adhere to national standards. I can guarantee that those standards are much higher that the ones we follow now. We talk alot in these forums about ICS/NIMS, Incident Commander training, etc, when what we need to be talking about are the basics of human SAR and I can tell you from experience that alot of the bare bones basics are still higher standards than what we follow in CAP. I myself am not in extraordinarily good shape but Im still shocked by the physical condition of some of the GTMs that my squadron puts in the field. Most SAR groups that have medical officers would not allow these men and women anywhere near an active search.

You mention training for things that will never happen. I dont know what the statistics are right now on how many police officers are shot in the line of duty. When my father began as a sheriffs deputy in the 1960's, it was a pretty safe bet that on 8 out of 10 calls you WOULD be safe. Then there was the period where the LEOs that wore ballistic vests were considered...well you know what they were considered. At that time vests were optional. Now they are mandatory. At the time that they were not, my father wouldnt wear one because they were hot and bulky. Then he got shot in the line of duty. He is now a private security contractor at age 62 and he practically doesnt go grocery shopping without his vest. We have many members on this forum who carry concealed weapons on a daily basis. On the average day they probably dont need them. But if they said, I probably wont ever need it and didnt carry it, then on the one day that they did, they would be up a creek. I wear a ballistic vest as an EMS provider even when not doing TacMed and get laughed at. It has saved my life on three seperate occasions because I decided to spring the extra bucks for the vest that will stop blades and sharps.

Dont you think that its better to train to the highest standards and the greatest capabilities that we can and have the best skills and equipment possible so that when the time comes that we DO need them, we have them. And that time will come. When people's lives depend on what we do, the bare minimum training isnt good enough. When emergency management folks say that they wouldnt call CAP if anyone else was available, its time to re-evaluate what we do and how we do it. CAP provides an extraordinary set of public services at no cost to the public or whoever it is that may task us. Why should we want to be anything other than as close to perfect as we can get. I am sure there are military folks here who can testify that they were drilled on skills sets that they might not use in a 25 year career but on the one time they did use them, it was worth the countless hours of training. Look at how many police officers say they only fired their weapon once in their 30 year career. You can bet your boots that when they did, all that endless training seemed worth it.

[Flying Pig]

I do like how you write......

[RiverAux]

What don't you guys get about there being some point in the continuum of possible CAP missions where it just become absurd to try to train for it?  We can all think of 100+ possible variations of a CAP ground team SAR mission.  We cannot try to train for all of them, so we have to focus out limited training time on those scenarios we are most likely to face and count on having a strong enough grounding in the specific GT-tasks to be able to carry out the extremely unlikely scenarios should you be the one squadron in the country asked to take it on.

If you want to talk about changing CAPs GT task guide to raise the standards -- I'm all for that, but that isn't the issue at hand.   Personally I think our current standards IF PROPERLY TRAINED AND TESTED are pretty darn good but thats a different thread.     

[SARMedTech]

What don't you guys get about there being some point in the continuum of possible CAP missions where it just become absurd to try to train for it?  We can all think of 100+ possible variations of a CAP ground team SAR mission.  We cannot try to train for all of them, so we have to focus out limited training time on those scenarios we are most likely to face and count on having a strong enough grounding in the specific GT-tasks to be able to carry out the extremely unlikely scenarios should you be the one squadron in the country asked to take it on.

If you want to talk about changing CAPs GT task guide to raise the standards -- I'm all for that, but that isn't the issue at hand.   Personally I think our current standards IF PROPERLY TRAINED AND TESTED are pretty darn good but thats a different thread.     

Nobody is saying that we can train for every eventuality. We are saying (at least I am) that we owe it to the people we serve to train in a way that provides us with the skill set to deal with as many eventualities as possible. What dont YOU get about that? Yes we have lots of good standards and lots of good people, but when you look at what other organizations that do SAR set as their standards, we dont come anywhere close in a lot of cases. Do you honestly think that when someone's survival is based on what we can and cannot do that "pretty darn good" is good enough? With the resources and training at our disposal we should be possess the best SAR teams in the country. Currently that isnt true, but it can be. Is there a reason that you dont want to be better than just good enough? The mere fact that we dont have an established system of emergency medical care available to our teams says that there is a gap between the way we train and what happens in the real world. Our training should serve to narrow that gap as much as humanly possible and that is not currently happening. When we get "outdone" by a little group like Cibola Search and Rescue in Albuquerque and we have military training at our disposal, thats a problem. Personally I think that every single GTL should have to attend and pass the AF's Inland Search and Rescue School. I wont take a GTL position until I have.

[RiverAux]

I've been to the 2-day version of the AF school and it isn't necessary for GTL at all.  Ground Branch Directors should probably have it, but it is not at all very helpful for planning the ground part of any sort of search CAP would be in.  It was a decent class, but its nothing special that any experienced group of CAP ES folks couldn't do themselves.

Unfortunately, CAP will never be as good as SOME independent SAR groups as long as we depend on the cadets for the vast majority of our ground SAR capability.  I don't have a problem with using cadets in ground SAR but the sad fact is that you only have 90% of them for 2-3 years and then they move on and you have to start training new ones all the time.  An independent SAR group is made up of adults who have been doing it for years and years and have the time to get beyond basic capabilities. 

Yes, there are adults in CAP who are long term gt persons but they are few and far between and you rarely see more than a couple of them within any of our ground teams.  Add all the die-hards in a group or wing together and you've probably got less people than in a local hard-core county SAR team. 

[SARMedTech]

I've been to the 2-day version of the AF school and it isn't necessary for GTL at all.  Ground Branch Directors should probably have it, but it is not at all very helpful for planning the ground part of any sort of search CAP would be in.  It was a decent class, but its nothing special that any experienced group of CAP ES folks couldn't do themselves.

Unfortunately, CAP will never be as good as SOME independent SAR groups as long as we depend on the cadets for the vast majority of our ground SAR capability.  I don't have a problem with using cadets in ground SAR but the sad fact is that you only have 90% of them for 2-3 years and then they move on and you have to start training new ones all the time.  An independent SAR group is made up of adults who have been doing it for years and years and have the time to get beyond basic capabilities. 

Yes, there are adults in CAP who are long term gt persons but they are few and far between and you rarely see more than a couple of them within any of our ground teams.  Add all the die-hards in a group or wing together and you've probably got less people than in a local hard-core county SAR team. 

Id be interested to know where you get the figures that support that most of CAPs ground SAR capabilities are from cadets. My squadron has no aircraft so we are pretty intensely ground ES. I cant imagine that we are the only ones.

I also dont think that a 2-day synopsis of the inland SAR school is representative of its totality. The AF itself bills it and sets it up as training for advanced SAR operators and stresses that simply because one is a GTL doesnt mean that one has the necessary skills and experience to complete the school. It involves advanced logistics and planning among other things, which I have found lacking in alot of training so far.  I will be taking the course in about a year as the capstone project to my MS in disaster/emergency management.

[RiverAux]

Id be interested to know where you get the figures that support that most of CAPs ground SAR capabilities are from cadets. My squadron has no aircraft so we are pretty intensely ground ES. I cant imagine that we are the only ones.

12 years in CAP in 3 different wings in 3 different regions is all the stats I need on this one....I'm usually stats focused, but my experience and every discussion about ground sar we've ever had on this or other boards seems to support  the idea that most of our qualified ground team personnel are cadets. 

[WoodlandSARman]

Before this gets any further lets NOT get on the "I have more time in and training then you do" drama.

My signature is just a HINT at what I have done in this program and for this program. I am leaving it out of this thread so regardless of what you have done in what wing is pointless to post.


When people say the word limited when it comes to training you INSULT me, the program and everyone.

Why limit yourself? One of my teams is in the Groups eyes the best team in the wing by far. It did not happen overnight. It started at least back in 98. They have more tracking gear in their van then you have every seen, most fairly cheap that they invented and it works very well. They have fully stocked EMT bags that their EMT's and Nurse can use, they have a PA, they have everything. The are also Id say the best trained GT in the wing. Why? Because they do not limit themselves in training.

In this wing we have former and current military, spec ops, Infantry, ect ect. Why not use some of the usefull training they can and want to provide? It is RETARDED NOT TO!

Its sad to say but true, for the most part 95% of CAP ES is a JOKE compared to some SAR teams out there. Why? Because they do not LIMIT themselves. There is the other 5% that is respected and up there with the other teams because they go above and beyond and they are the ones that allways have the phone wing.

I challenge ANY group in ANY wing to do what I will have done by the end of this year alone!

IN Wing is known for its GT's, Air Teams and NESA. We have some of the best air teams around, most spend very little time on the ground. At the SAR eval we had like 7 or 8 aircraft show up with full crews. We are proud to represent! We had so many GT's and Air Teams we did not know what to do with them! All the doubters can keep doubting and laughing. IN wing or at least IN Central will be put on the map and rock the boat HARD. The ball is allready rolling!
IN Wing prides itself in lot limiting itself!

I am not bragging at all, I am just saying, you all watch............

[WoodlandSARman]

I also think to many people put to much of a priority on cadets and keeping them in and happy.

This program WOULD survive with NO cadets. We have senior squadrons, this proves it. Granted it would not be as large but would survive. my winf alone has roughly 200 more seniors then cadets.

I have allways told my cadets that I will not baby them to keep them from leaving, if they want to leave then there is the door.


If I had to make a dream team GT out of my group (really wing) and pick one person from another group do you know how many would be cadets? NONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are there good GT cadets that have been at it for years? YES!, are they the best? NO!

Any now senior member GTL that was a cadet GTL will tell you that to matter how long they were a cadet they are better as a senior. Same for GTM's. Its because they have learned to go above and beyoned and not have anyone hold them back.


What would happen if YOU were out and crashed of got lost in a really bad spot thats really hard to get to and we got you on the radio after you told us you would not make it unless we got out soon and said "were sorry but we are not trained for that kind of rescue"
It may never happen but it may.

People also need to be trained to be able to handle the fact that they may find one of their own.
When I was a cadet we lost a squadron commander in a crash, his GT found him..........

[Flying Pig]

"What would happen if YOU were out and crashed of got lost in a really bad spot thats really hard to get to and we got you on the radio after you told us you would not make it unless we got out soon and said "were sorry but we are not trained for that kind of rescue"
It may never happen but it may."

Ummmmm.....OK. Im thinkin at that point, someone else would be enroute to get them.

I would hope your response would still be "Hold on, were coming."

You need to take into consideration where you are.  When you have a  SAR, do you have State Police Helos, Sheriff Helos and airplanes arriving along with SAR Teams.  And I mean SAR Teams comprised of medics, swift water rescue techs, high angle rescue techs, divers, rappel masters, trained in winter ops and full mobile comand posts?  Full aircraft ground support crews, SAR members fully intergrated in high altitude ops and helicopter ops?  Can your IN. CAP teams medivac a victim immidiately after they are located?  Can you lower a litter, a medic and hoist a victim out at 10,000Ft.  Not to mention everyone being paid.  In Ca. those resources are available.  Not to mention the military.

I admire your drive, but all of that isn't needed where I am.  If your really in an area where your in a  position to tell someone they are out of luck, then I agree, you need to be ready.  But in Ca Wing, someone IS coming to get you.  In Ca. I think its our support and Air roles that are the key.  And remember, I am a CAP member making this observation.

I read through my post a few times to make sure I wasnt being to over zealous....

[WoodlandSARman]

In IN wing, we WILL come and get you because we train!

Yes we have any resource available to us. Are they allways available? No.

We might be able to have lifeline get them out but if they are a few miles in on foot and there is no available vertical helo extraction available for a while then thats a problem and you have to do things the old fashioned way.

Why can't CAP have REAL sar teams with the people you mentioned?

Please explain to me why?

I have been in this long enough to know that you do not allways have every resource available to you, ofter its very little. What happens when you go into the hills and you can't get a high bird for another hour or two and you have to comm?

To many people that live in a fantasy world that not have been on GOOD realistic SAR ex's or live missions were things go wrong and you don't get what you need.

To many people that rely on radios, and technology. We have a state park that so big and dense that if you get lost it will be a few days before you find a road if you don't stay put. There is only one or two GT's in this wing that I would send in there. Why? Lack of training.

Technology is great and helo extract but sometimes that fails and sometimes you can't get a vertical extract and have to get them out into a clearing that may be a mile away.

I went to NESA with a professional SAR team member from CA, thats what he did for a living. His team does NOT rely on technology.

[Flying Pig]

Im not saying you cant have that stuff.  Shoot for the stars and land somewhere in the middle.
Good luck.  Sounds like Indiana is lucky to have your vision.

[fyrfitrmedic]

 After reading this thread, I keep expecting to hear someone banging a shoe or something on a table while reading some of the posts.

[RiverAux]

I guess all I've got left to say is that any Wing and the residents in that state would be better off by having a ground team or two in every squadron that meets current CAP standards and can perform 95% of the missions we get rather than have 1 squadron that can do 100% of the missions. 

If you want to take your squadron, or those people within your squadron willing to do it, beyond our standards (while staying within the limitations in our regulations) thats fine by me I just don't see it resulting in that much of a return on your investment of time and resources since whatever gains you get will probably be fleeting.   

[ELTHunter]

Do you mean that as in "When was the last time you saw a team stay out that long?" or "When was the last time a team went back in after only 12 hours?"

The last time you saw a team go out active for 12 hours and not come back. I have never seen it. The most I have seen is training days at NESA but its with a lot of down time and I would consider it more training then active searching.

I spent 24 hours on crash site security once.  It was on an old mine site, not exactly way back in the boonies, but you had to 4 wheel into and out of it.  The nearest town was about 20 minutes away.

[ELTHunter]

SARMedTech and WoodlandSARman,

You make some good and valid points and there are many advantages to conducting the kind of training you are talking about.  In my squadron, we have historically done informal training in a very large National Recreation Area where we have hiked 25, 30 or 40 miles in 24 - 48 hours.  It was a lot of fun, everyone learns a lot about themselves and their teammates, and it is a heck of a confidence builder for a teenager.  It also gives a GTM a real feel for how team members are going to react in the field under stress, and the GTM's to apply survival and land nav skills in a real world environment.  However, realistically, CAP is not going to put members in that kind of situation, and I really can't imagine a scenario in an actual mission where it would be justified unless there was an extreme emergency.  The fact is CAP is not the only resource available now days for responding to back woods SAR.  I'd be willing to bet that nine times out of ten, in a scenario that these "LRP" skills would be used in, the National Guard, Sherriff's department or some other resource would be called in before CAP-USAF would allow a CAP team to go into that type of situation.  In these days of ORM, it's just not gonna happen.

To start with, I have seen very few senior members that were physically fit enough to hump extended periods in the backwoods like that.  Secondly, as others have pointed out, many times we have ground teams that are not even well trained on the basics, or have invested the money in acquiring good reliable gear that you can trust to take somewhere where you will be hours from the nearest road.  Thirdly, at least where we train, you usually have no VHF comm capability in situations like that without a highbird.  Say what you will about needing to train for comm out situations, taking a team into a situation where they are miles from civilization with no way to contact help, especially when cadets are involved, is not smart.  Simulating a comm out scenario is one thing, but putting people in that situation in training is another.

I'm not saying your ideas aren't good.  If you've got the people that can take it, they are equipped, have the preliminary training to do it, knock yourself out.  I'm just not sure that it is practical to do it in a "school" with large numbers of people, some of whom you might not be familiar with.  Before we ever did anything like that, they had to go on a "qualifying" hike first and we had to be sure they could handle the extended training.

As for using cadets and their qualifications as GTM's, I have probably seen more cadets than senior members that had both the physical fitness and the ground team skills that I would trust to go out on a serious extended mission.  They may require more attention because they can still lack good judgement at times, but than again so do some senior members.  I would have to agree with those that think CAP would lose a substantial portion of our ground teams without cadets.  Most senior members I know are more interested in vehicle searches or running things at mission base than they are going into the woods for any length of time, and show me a senior squadron where the majority of members are not pilots or aircrew.

One other drawback of having a gung ho ground team that's not afraid to jump out of the vehicle and hit the trail is that they aren't afraid to jump out of the vehicle and hit the trail.  I have had team members that were so anxious to get out and walk that if I hadn't have stopped them, we would have gotten out and walked miles up and down valleys and ridges and maybe found a crash site we finally were able to drive to within a quarter mile of.  When it comes to managing the mission, you gotta look at what's most efficient from both a time and energy perspective, as well as safety considerations.

[SARMedTech]

I guess all I've got left to say is that any Wing and the residents in that state would be better off by having a ground team or two in every squadron that meets current CAP standards and can perform 95% of the missions we get rather than have 1 squadron that can do 100% of the missions. 

If you want to take your squadron, or those people within your squadron willing to do it, beyond our standards (while staying within the limitations in our regulations) thats fine by me I just don't see it resulting in that much of a return on your investment of time and resources since whatever gains you get will probably be fleeting.   

Im troubled  by this attitude.  WoodlandSARMan is trying very enthusiastically to make CAP better and to increase our capabilities and our abilities to save lives. I wonder I how many CAP SAR GTMs have never been on an actual. I wonder how many have gotten to a site and found a dead pilot and passenger, not dead from the crash but from exposure, etc. This is a reality. It happens all the time that people die when the elements and unfamiliar terrain kill them. I dont know what your actual live SAR experience is. Ive been on about 30 actuals outside of CAP. In 5 of those, the people we were looking for died (at the medical examiners estimation) about 6-8 hours before we got to them. Now that...my experience, first hand...tells me that increasing the time spent afield and moving toward a target location makes a difference and there is no reason that we shouldnt train to be able to move more quickly, more effectively, etc. I cant imagine why anyone would say that "good enough" is the best we need to do.  If there are those that dont want to engage in the extra training, which can be very rigorous, they certainly dont have to. We may have 1 or 2 or 5 SARs a year which require these advanced skills, the kinds of things that WoodlandSARMan is talking about, but isnt it worth it if the outcome of the search is the saving of a life?

[RiverAux]

We may have 1 or 2 or 5 SARs a year which require these advanced skills, the kinds of things that WoodlandSARMan is talking about, but isnt it worth it if the outcome of the search is the saving of a life?

My point is that if we have 1-5 SARs a year across the entire nation that require these skills the chances that they occurred in an area where the CAP teams have gone far beyond our standards so as to respond is minimal. 

If you live in a state where you have large areas lacking roads where a 25 mile or 2-3 day hikes would be necessary to reach a crash site, yes you should probably go beyond our regular standards.  However, that isn't necessary in very many places east of the Rocky Mountains and would still be rarely, if ever necessary to actually do in the rest of the country. 

[SARMedTech]

SARMedTech and WoodlandSARman,

You make some good and valid points and there are many advantages to conducting the kind of training you are talking about.  In my squadron, we have historically done informal training in a very large National Recreation Area where we have hiked 25, 30 or 40 miles in 24 - 48 hours.  It was a lot of fun, everyone learns a lot about themselves and their teammates, and it is a heck of a confidence builder for a teenager.  It also gives a GTM a real feel for how team members are going to react in the field under stress, and the GTM's to apply survival and land nav skills in a real world environment.  However, realistically, CAP is not going to put members in that kind of situation, and I really can't imagine a scenario in an actual mission where it would be justified unless there was an extreme emergency.  The fact is CAP is not the only resource available now days for responding to back woods SAR.  I'd be willing to bet that nine times out of ten, in a scenario that these "LRP" skills would be used in, the National Guard, Sherriff's department or some other resource would be called in before CAP-USAF would allow a CAP team to go into that type of situation.  In these days of ORM, it's just not gonna happen.

To start with, I have seen very few senior members that were physically fit enough to hump extended periods in the backwoods like that.  Secondly, as others have pointed out, many times we have ground teams that are not even well trained on the basics, or have invested the money in acquiring good reliable gear that you can trust to take somewhere where you will be hours from the nearest road.  Thirdly, at least where we train, you usually have no VHF comm capability in situations like that without a highbird.  Say what you will about needing to train for comm out situations, taking a team into a situation where they are miles from civilization with no way to contact help, especially when cadets are involved, is not smart.  Simulating a comm out scenario is one thing, but putting people in that situation in training is another.

I'm not saying your ideas aren't good.  If you've got the people that can take it, they are equipped, have the preliminary training to do it, knock yourself out.  I'm just not sure that it is practical to do it in a "school" with large numbers of people, some of whom you might not be familiar with.  Before we ever did anything like that, they had to go on a "qualifying" hike first and we had to be sure they could handle the extended training.

As for using cadets and their qualifications as GTM's, I have probably seen more cadets than senior members that had both the physical fitness and the ground team skills that I would trust to go out on a serious extended mission.  They may require more attention because they can still lack good judgement at times, but than again so do some senior members.  I would have to agree with those that think CAP would lose a substantial portion of our ground teams without cadets.  Most senior members I know are more interested in vehicle searches or running things at mission base than they are going into the woods for any length of time, and show me a senior squadron where the majority of members are not pilots or aircrew.

One other drawback of having a gung ho ground team that's not afraid to jump out of the vehicle and hit the trail is that they aren't afraid to jump out of the vehicle and hit the trail.  I have had team members that were so anxious to get out and walk that if I hadn't have stopped them, we would have gotten out and walked miles up and down valleys and ridges and maybe found a crash site we finally were able to drive to within a quarter mile of.  When it comes to managing the mission, you gotta look at what's most efficient from both a time and energy perspective, as well as safety considerations.

No one is saying that when you can insert a SAR team a quarter of a mile from a scene that they should be out there instead humping around the mountains for 12 hours. No one has said that...certainly I havent. What frustrates me is that we have people who have Senior ES ratings and are GTLs that have VERY basic skills. Thats just not right. When you offer your services as a SAR team, you better make sure that you can handle whatever is thrown at you. Yes there are members that cant even walk around the block and they probably shouldnt be out on a SAR ground search at all...not because they are inferior people, but because when they keel over, the team has to stop the search to tend to their new victim---probably of a heart attack. When you hold yourself out at someone who does SAR or an organization that does SAR, you have to be as good as you can be and there is a gap in CAP between how good we CAN be and how good we ARE. The reason that a very intense SAR operation would be turned over to a sheriffs department of a professional SAR organization is that they know that we dont have the personnel capabilities to handle it. OK. We are good at the basics. Is there some law that says we cant be better than that? We need to start looking at our cadets not as the be all and end all, but when they turn 18 and can start getting into the "transitional grades" we need to take their abilities and train on them. Give them better skills and better training. Ive asked it before and I will ask it again: when did good enough become good enough. I doubt the WWII CAP "subhunters" had the mindset that all they had to do was to be "good enough." See thats alot of the problem. Then they were tasked with something that was very VERY important. Now there seems to be this prevailing mindset that if we cant handle a tasking, someone will pick up our slack and thats just not acceptable.

The USCGAUX has its share of out of shape members who cannot handle advanced physical searches let alone the training, but thats ok because there work is done in boats and alot of what they do, by there own admission, is point the way and step aside. Thats not what we do, so our training needs to reflect more advanced missions.

As for what River Aux has said is his most recent post...try coming to Illinois to do a search in Starved Rock State Park or go to NM and do a search in the Jemez mountains. Just because you dont want something to be true doesnt mean it isnt.

[RiverAux]

You are seriously mixing up your complaints... if your GTLs don't meet the standards, it isn't the fault of the standards, it is the fault of your unit and the Wing ES staff for not enforcing the standards we have. 

Last I looked parts of New Mexico are in and west of the Rocky Mountains so those folks certainly probably could use some long distance hikes. 

The state park doesn't look like you need to hike 2-3 days to get to a site -- its only 2600 acres for goodness sakes.... yes, it looks rough, but no extended hikes or camps are necessary to get to a site.   

[SARMedTech]

You are seriously mixing up your complaints... if your GTLs don't meet the standards, it isn't the fault of the standards, it is the fault of your unit and the Wing ES staff for not enforcing the standards we have. 

Last I looked parts of New Mexico are in and west of the Rocky Mountains so those folks certainly probably could use some long distance hikes. 

The state park doesn't look like you need to hike 2-3 days to get to a site -- its only 2600 acres for goodness sakes.... yes, it looks rough, but no extended hikes or camps are necessary to get to a site.   

About 5-10 people get lost or injured and unable to hike out in the rough terrain of those 2600 acres every year. Im just going to agree to disagree with you because I believe you seriously misunderstand the necessities of an extremely difficult operation. You can have the last word because there is no point in trying to convince someone of something when they wont listen. At least I have been able to say that I understand that these advanced skills arent always going to be necessary but that we should have them to make us better when they are needed. At the very least, we would probably get more taskings with increased abilities and it would silence the people who say they dont have anything to do in CAP. And Im not mixing up my complaints. The GTLs cant meet high standards that arent in place in the first place.

PS-

Why dont you come out for a hike in Starved Rock and we will run a SARex and see how long it takes you to find a target in those 2600 acres.

[isuhawkeye]

I grew up at starved rock. 

No single team would search that area.  That park is criss crossed with roads, ATV, and horse access. 

A proper search of that terrain would involve several different teams and resources.  including K-9, rope/tech rescue, foot searchers, etc. 

I think the two of you have very valid points,

I personally have a tough time with special or advanced teams. 

But I also expect the teams that I lead, and the teams I deploy in the field to work, until their assignment is complete regardless of how long it takes, or the weather, 

[SARMedTech]

I grew up at starved rock. 

No single team would search that area.  That park is criss crossed with roads, ATV, and horse access. 

A proper search of that terrain would involve several different teams and resources.  including K-9, rope/tech rescue, foot searchers, etc. 

I think the two of you have very valid points,

I personally have a tough time with special or advanced teams. 

But I also expect the teams that I lead, and the teams I deploy in the field to work, until their assignment is complete regardless of how long it takes, or the weather, 

I respect your opinion because I know your background. I personally am not talking about specialized teams, just raising the bar for training across the board.

[arajca]

I'm going to bring up a few points here:
1. You only need to be able to handle what you advertise. If you're not a water rescue team and some IC throws you a water rescue assignment, you're an idiot if you take it. If you're a Type IV Wilderness SAR team and you're given an Mountain SAR team assignment, same thing.

2. Very few areas have paid SAR teams, but there are a huge number of professional SAR teams out there. There is no reason why CAP cannot fall into this category.

3. Get out of the "we can do anything" mindset. We need to find out the areas we can work in based on legal issues, regulatory restrictions, training, local needs, ad nauseum, then see which ones we are capable of working. It may only be as a Type III WSAR team and not a Type I MSAR team. It may be providing incident management support.

4. Get with program that the rest of the ES world is using. The only time I have seen SAR teams stay in the field over night is when they either have sight of the victim or are with the victim. I live in an area where SAR is a common occurance, although CAP is not involved, yet.

[SARMedTech]

arajca-

Ive never said we need to be able to do everything. We just need to be really good at what we DO do and in that regard we could use new types of training and exercises.

As for SAR teams staying in the field, in the 30 non-CAP actuals I have run so far, I have stayed in the field in all terrains and climates for at least 48 hours on 12 actuals.   One of my main points is that we give lots of talk about 72 hour gear IN CASE we need to stay afield, but there arent alot of members that could do that at all, let alone have the skills and proper gear to do it comfortably and safely so that they dont end up just being another victim that someone has to come looking for.

I know that you have alot of experience in this area, but you shouldnt fall into the trap of thinking that you are the only one or that your experiences are what is the standard across the board in the SAR world.

In the ambulance I work on as a non-firefighter EMT, I carry SCBA gear and have been trained and certified in its use. Now as a non-firefighter, Im not likely to need it often (Ive only used it once) but isnt it a good idea that if I have to go into a meth lab to drag a patient out before HAZMAT can arrive that I know how to use the equipment and have the skills to operate why using it?

PS- Can you point me toward concrete and specific information as to what CAP "advertises" it can do as far as SAR operations are concerned because I havent yet seen it. When you just talk about being able to do SAR, it would indicate that you can do it under any circumstances.

[Sgt. Savage]

I see a common theme. CAP SAR teams aren't used because we train to a low standard. Why change that? Lets keep the current standard and continue to train for nothing. Isn't excellence over rated?

(Read sarcasm, I'm in a foul mood this morning)

[davedove]

I think the problem is that everyone is speaking from different sides of the same issue.  I've got nothing against higher standards.  If it makes a team better, go for it.  Unfortunately, for whatever reason, we don't always have teams trained to the current standards.  And, by regulation, we have to function at the lowest team member's level.

So, for all practical purposes you have two options.  1)  Train more folks up to the established standards.  2)  Train a few folks to higher standards.

I would personally rather see us get a greater number of teams trained to the current standards first.  This would give us a greater resource pool to draw from.  After that, you can then pursue more training.

[Sgt. Savage]

Sorry for the early morning rant (see above). I find it frustrating to see people rejecting proposals to be more effective when there are people ready to train to a higher standard. I meant what I said; that I'm realizing we get under utilized because, well, as an organization, our GT resources suck! Don't get me wrong, I'm willing to train to the limit every day (figuratively). That's me, I own the t-shirt already. It's hard to get others to do the same.

I believe that if we train to operate for 12 hours straight, we'll feel great when we only operate for 6. If we train to operate for 24 hours, unsupported, a 12 hour mission will be a cake walk. If we train to operate for 4 hours and have to stay out for 8, we're less effective after the 4th hour has passed.

Having been active with a number of other threads there is a dominant theme; don't change anything. Not uniforms, not PD, not rank.... nothing. Leave it alone, it takes effort to change it.

That's not me. I'm an NCO, I get the job done. If it isn't working, I fix it. Though it's great to talk about, few are motivated enough to try to change it.

WoodlandSARman, I salute you for your effort.

" I will complete my mission, though I be the lone survivor..."

[Stonewall]

There is no need for change because all sorts of things like this are happening already, and have happened for years long before most of us joined CAP.  The thing is, they may not be in your area or officially recognized by NHQ.  And I'm not just talking ES either.

I've been involved with atypical training and exercises for years, even as a cadet.  The difference is, most people that are doers aren't sitting at their computer chatting about how cool it could be if....  No, they're out there doing things.  From from a CAP GSAR "Recondo" team, yes "RECONDO", the same thing as LRP (or what we called LRSAR [lur-sar]) for Long Range Search and Rescue, to Air Ground Operations School (AGOS).  Nope, not recognized outside of our squadron or wing, but relevant totally to CAP and Ground SAR, but most likely only relevant to our locale.  CAP training doesn't always have to be standardized across the board, because missions, terrain, resources and needs (almost like METT-T) are not standardized across the board.

If I wanted to put together a LRP course/training and had a true need for it in my area, I'd just do it.  You know what though, I'd just call it "training".  Sure, we had our annual Winter Exercise called WINTEX; our annual Tactical Communications Exercise called TAC COMEX, and our annual Mountain Exercise called, you guessed it, MOUNTEX.  No need for a MOUNTEX in FL or parts of Alabama, I don't know.  But heck, we did it anyway.  Overnight "patrols" where ground teams would remain overnight (RON) in the field with only their 24 hr gear was a standard practice for us in squadrons in DC wing.  Why?  Because whether you like it or not, it's realistic and may actually have to be done on a real mission.  You could call that your LRP team if you wanted, but we just called it a ground team. 

So yeah, things like this happen all the time.  I can only speak of my experiences in FL and DC (Northern Virginia side), but I know for a fact that this type of training goes on throughout the country, mostly at the squadron or group level.  Some people call it Ranger training and some people may have another high speed name for it.  But I'm of the mindset that it's simply GSAR training.  Just because you're tying knots or making a poncho raft doesn't make it "Ranger training".  Again, it's just training.  Make it as high speed as you want, I always did.  From water operations (aka river crossings) to catching and eating a squirrel.  Chances are you'll never need to skin and eat a squirrel, but darn it, I'll be [darn]ed if you're going to end up on a mission where you need to and don't know how.

There are mountain flying clinics and training missions for our air crews, why not long range search training for ground teams.  It isn't a big deal, not 4 pages worth, if you ask me.

[WoodlandSARman]

I am trying to go above and beyoned here guys. I am not the kind of person that wants to stick to the basics. I am also planing an aircrew only survival class.

How many times do you see that in CAP?

Many seniors are not in shape but many are. At least in this wing we have quite a few that can keep up .

Would you rather an ES officer that threw out a ton of ideas and the group only ran with two of them or an ES officer who throws out none and you don't even know who your ES officer is?

How many seniors in this program are bums on a long? A lot of them.

[Stonewall]

I am trying to go above and beyoned here guys. I am not the kind of person that wants to stick to the basics.

Nothing wrong with doing any kind of "advanced" training as long as the people participating in that training are indeed experts in the basics.  The problem is, people get bored with the basics.  My answer to that is to expand on the basics.  I can take an ironing and boot polishing class and make it exciting, memorable and hands on.  You'd think they just did a slide-for-life into a lake. 

Take first aid and CPR for instance.  I never taught just_another_first_aid_class.  It turned into a weekend-long first aid course that did more than get you a standard first aid card.  You'd actually use equipment, run scenarios, carry a senior member [read: heavy] on a litter and maybe even learn how to pack your personal first aid kit.  I dont' call that "advanced", I call it realistic and practical while meeting the standard.

I am also planing an aircrew only survival class.

How many times do you see that in CAP?

Lots of times.  In fact, we'd do weekend long aircrew clinics and monthly "pilot meetings" and the topics often included survival.  Not only that, but when a CAP aircraft went down during a mountain flying clinic in the late 90s, I was very close to 2 of the 3 aircrew members, 1 pilot, during the AAR of the crash, talked about survival and how a class that I taught him on survival, specifically land navigation, helped the aircrew, one of which was injured.  In fact, he didn't have a compass for his survival kit so I gave him an extra one I had.  He used that compass!  So yeah, aircrew survival classes, been done all around the nation for years.

I AM NOT KNOCKING YOUR EFFORTS!  And I'm not discrediting you, I'm saying, these types of things are simply part of your job as an ESO, GSAR Officer, ES Training Officer or whatever your ES job title is at Group.  Aircrew survival is not above and beyond, it is and should be the basics.

Many seniors are not in shape but many are. At least in this wing we have quite a few that can keep up .

You're right, many SMs are not in shape, but the difference between aircrew and ground team gurus is the aircrews are actually required to get a physical.  What?  Every year?  Every two years?  I've seen more fat ground team types than aircrew types.  It should be a requirement for ground team members, senior and/or cadet, to get an annual physical.  But that's a different topic. 

Would you rather an ES officer that threw out a ton of ideas and the group only ran with two of them or an ES officer who throws out none and you don't even know who your ES officer is?

Ideas are great, you have to start somewhere.  But execution and accomplishment are what counts.  You can sit in a room for a few hours brainstorming and come up with lots of ideas, some good, some bad, some realistic, some fantasy.  That's your first step.  You'll find the real work comes in the logistics phase of putting something together.  Finding qualified instructors, a place to train, money for training, other resources.  Good luck, hope it all works out.  I really do.

How many seniors in this program are bums on a long? A lot of them.

Not sure I understand this one.  "bums on a long".

[RiverAux]

I'm not going to get into a "who is a bigger ground team stud" contest here....

I think most of us are on the same page here in that overall CAP underfunds, undertrains, and therefore underutilizes its ground teams. 

Personally, I believe those of us interested in this issue should focus our efforts on getting as many CAP teams to REALLY meet the current CAP standards and then we should be looking ahead to what we are going to need to do to meet the upcoming national (everybody, not just CAP) standards.  This is mor than enough for CAP to focus on at the moment.

If an individual CAP unit wants to do more than that, they can go for it, they should just realize that they are doing it for fun and (depending on how far you take it) that it will very likely bear little relation to what they will really be called on to do for CAP. 

Don't forget there is a risk involved in raising expectations about what CAP ground team work really is about.  How many of us have heard gt members (cadets and officers) B&M about being out on an actual airplane search mission where they were kept on standby at a staging area all day waiting for the search planes to come up with some targets?  Sorry, but thats the way it is -- we're not going to send you off hiking through the woods when we don't even know what county the plane went down in yet.  And, yes I do realize that there are other useful things that GTs can do in these situations, but they aren't always necessary or really even a good use of time. 

[WoodlandSARman]

Stonewall, I am starting to think you see what I am trying to do but we are just on the wrong page.

When I sent the outline ot my DC I called it Long Range Rescue Patrol school.

Does the name matter? No, its all about the training.

I am trying to do more with missing person searches, in the end you use A LOT of that training with missing aircraft, they both go hand in hand.


Remember there is allways the chance that everything WILL go wrong. I am not worried about not having people that are not experts for training. I allready have them lined up for all the classes down to first aid.

[sardak]

When I sent the outline ot my DC I called it Long Range Rescue Patrol school.

Does the name matter? No, its all about the training.

Well, the name might matter in today's world of ICS and common terminology, and NIMS and resource typing and credentialing.  If you keep it internal to your group and maybe wing, the name probably doesn't matter.  But if you start trying to sell the concept to EMAs, sheriffs and other agencies having jurisdiction, the name will matter.

In particular, calling it "long range rescue patrol" implies the ability to perform very remote area rescue.  Definition of "rescue" under NIMS.
To access, stabilize, and evacuate distressed or injured individuals by whatever means necessary to ensure their timely transfer to appropriate care or to a place of safety.
NFPA has a similar definition.

Again, as others have said, your ideas are good, and while perhaps not common in CAP, are not new to CAP or SAR.  As one example, the latest version of the NASAR text "Managing the Lost Person Incident," released in April of this year, has a section on long range search patrols.

Just don't get into the trap, common in CAP, of trying to sell more than what CAP can really do.

Mike

[Flying Pig]

" When you have a  SAR, do you have State Police Helos, Sheriff Helos and airplanes arriving along with SAR Teams.  And I mean SAR Teams comprised of medics, swift water rescue techs, high angle rescue techs, divers, rappel masters, trained in winter ops and full mobile comand posts?  Full aircraft ground support crews, SAR members fully intergrated in high altitude ops and helicopter ops?  Can your IN. CAP teams medivac a victim immidiately after they are located?  Can you lower a litter, a medic and hoist a victim out at 10,000Ft.  Not to mention everyone being paid.  In Ca. those resources are available.  Not to mention the military."

Titles say a lot in law enforcement, SAR included.  I say law enforcement because thats who youll be coordinating with.  When people call themelves a SAR team, not to mention inventing a totally different title of  Long Range Rescue Patrol, the above is what I expect to see coming.  Its always been my opinion that CAP really needs to stay away from the word "Rescue".   I dont know your experience, but unless youve ever truely seen a TEAM actually rescue someone, I dont mean find or locate, I mean full blown rescue someone, youll understand what I mean.

LRRP is an Army Acronym.  Long Range Recon Patrol.  CAP-LRRP, Long Range Rescue Patrol?  Eeeeeehh.....a little heavy on the icing I think.

[RiverAux]

Well, Search and RESCUE is a pretty standard term and every once in a while we do actually rescue somebody, and without having to give them extensive medical care to do it.  Whats the alternative?  Just SEARCH teams?  Sort of implies you never actually find anybody. 

[sardak]

Under NIMS, SAR teams are typed and their differing rescue capabilities are defined.  Since there is not a defined "rescue patrol," one has to revert to the definition of "rescue" since there is implication that this is not a SAR team.

One could keep just the rescue name and then make it clear to other agencies what the real function is.  There are SAR groups who don't have search in their names.  But if it's more than just a rescue team, why not use SAR, particularly in CAP?

Mike

[floridacyclist]

I wouldn't get into semantics. being part of a search and rescue team gives you rights to the full phrase for simplicity. Even the Coast Guard calls their Hercules "Search and Rescue" aircraft.

Besides, based on that logic, any teams that respond after the initial location would have to call themselves "rescue" teams since the searching part has already been done.