DR Doctrine, and lack thereof

[Eclipse]

We've got a fair amount of flooding in my wing right now  - it rained hard, some streets are closed, the commute was
really bad this am because some major roadways were blocked.  Basically an "inconvenience of biblical proportion".
Obviously for those directly affected it's anywhere from a PITA to legit tragedy, but it's not Sandy or Katrina by a long shot.
Basically, people in areas prone to flooding are getting flooding, the same way they do every time it rains this heavy.

Anyway...

We've gotten several requests for assistance from local municipalities in regards to sandbagging and similar duties.
We have a C-Mission from the NOC, and the call went out for a minimum of "GES, Form 60, safety currency, and a vest).

Um.  What?

Under what doctrine, guidance, or authorization are we allowed to do these types of missions?

It's one thing to call for and deploy qualified Ground Teams - this is what they do, or can do, at least in as
much as they have been evaluated for a baseline ability to be relatively independent, have a required level of equipment,
and should be self-sufficient in the field.  At least on paper, GT's won't become mission liabilities.

None of this is true for someone with a wet "GES and a Form 60".
No training, no gear, no documentation requirements, no supervisory requirements, not even a way to fam/prep members
before being allowed to enter the field, as with any other rating in CAP, including MSA.

I'm going to fix this in my wing, one way or another, but I don't see how NHQ can continue to look the other way while
allowing untrained, ill-prepared members to operate in potentially hazardous environments with zero qualification that
they actually belong there.

To me, we should not allow anyone without at least GTM3T to be in the field like this.  That or better still we need a
"DR3" or similar with a reasonable subset of gear and training, and some briefing on what to expect and what you're allowed
and not allowed to do.

[RiverAux]

Under what doctrine, guidance, or authorization are we allowed to do these types of missions?

One might check the federal law chartering CAP and the stated purposes of our organization:

The purposes of the corporation are as follows:
(1) To provide an organization to—
(A) encourage and aid citizens of the United States in contributing their efforts, services, and resources in developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy; and
(B) encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare.
(2) To provide aviation education and training especially to its senior and cadet members.
(3) To encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities.
(4) To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies.
(5) To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its noncombat programs and missions.

In other words, CAP can chose to respond to any emergency for which our assistance is requested or to any other request that might benefit the public welfare.

That being said, many on this board know that I have been bemoaning for many years the lack of some sort of doctrine for ground-related operations other than SAR. 

However, the lack of such a doctrine doesn't keep us from responding unless we're asked to do an activity that is specifically prohibited by our regs.  Sandbagging and general grunt labor are not prohibited. 

[arajca]

Instead of GTM3T, which does not address DR in any way, look to CERT. Either full blown by an EMA, or done in-house using the same materials.

Most DR missions I've been on do not involve any GT skills. We've done sand-bagging, tornado clean up, food service assistance, donation sorting, etc. Those are just the ones I've been involved in. You don't need any CAP training to fill sand bags or unload a truck.

GTManything doesn't provide training in damage assessment, which would be another role CAP could do. Any DR training you could give a GT when they report in could just as easily be give to a bunch of GES members, with additional benefit of not having the "I'm a GTM, not a manual laborer" attitude. Seen it, seen them sent home.

[Luis R. Ramos]

River-

I think that what Eclipse is complaining is that it appears the call went out for people that were not prepared or qualified as Ground Team Member 3. I other words, if you had a vest, GES, and a CAPF 60.

If this is the case, I side with him. You are asking for people that have never even been on a mission, not even a training mission so you do not know how they will act on a real mission.

Flyer

[Luis R. Ramos]

Let's hope Eclipse gives more details.

I have seen the same calls. After a hurricane, Group Ops requested any qualified as a GTM. His CC countermanded him with GES, safety current. Not even anything like UDF nor with CERT nor whether they had been on a mission.

Flyer

[Eclipse]

That sounds great on paper (both figuratively and practically), but doesn't fly in th conservative culture which is CAP.

If anything, it runs 180 counter to the normal notion of "if it doesn't say you can't, you can",
and I don't know how we'd defend ourselves in a hearing room in the event that a member is injured, or hurts someone else.

"So, are we to understand that during the course of a mission, members are required to have special training to process base check-ins, but you allowed members to work in the field near a
dangerous flooding situation with no particular training or evaluation of capability?"

Flooded areas, for example, are going to be prone to downed power lines, stalled vehicles, rapidly outflow of water, not to mention
what happens if a levy or bag-wall breeches.  Heck, if nothing else we should be shoeing the proper way to pick up a 20-lb sandbag load.

I can't send an unqualified adult to do ramp checks at an airport on a sunny day, but it's OK to allow untrained cadets to throw sand in a DR?
Or help at a shelter?  Hand out food, etc?

The ARC would never allow that, and they do this a lot more then CAP does.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Eclipse-

During floods, sometimes the water pressure in sewers push the manhole covers away. You are walking unexpectedly, and can have an accident or maybe even fall into one of these holes...

Flyer

[Storm Chaser]

None of this is true for someone with a wet "GES and a Form 60".
No training, no gear, no documentation requirements, no supervisory requirements, not even a way to fam/prep members
before being allowed to enter the field, as with any other rating in CAP, including MSA.

I completely agree with you. Personnel with GES only should help in a support capacity, within a non-hazardous environment only.

To me, we should not allow anyone without at least GTM3T to be in the field like this.  That or better still we need a
"DR3" or similar with a reasonable subset of gear and training, and some briefing on what to expect and what you're allowed
and not allowed to do.

I would support such training and qualification. However, there's another qualification available in CAP that doesn't seem to be used that much: CERT. I realize that CERT is not a CAP-specific qualification and that training must be done through appropriate CERT Teams or other qualified personnel/agencies. But, why do we give credit in CAP for this qualification if it's not going to be used? Why not train CAP members to be CERT instructors to provide this training within CAP? I'm not opposed to a "DR3" qualification, but coming up with the requirements and appropriate training curriculum/task guide would probably take longer and require more effort that using the CERT qualification. Is there a good reason this may not be feasible?

[Eclipse]

I agree that GT, in and of itself, doesn't address DR very well.  It is really only useful on the level of self-sufficiency and adaptation to working in the field.

There is most certainly a level of training which is appropriate for this, likely something from
the ARC, FEMA, or similar. I'm not sure CERT is any more (or less) adaptable for this type of thing.

The point is that in a lot of these case, we have members who cannot be bothered the rest of the
year to be invested in the totality of the ES mindset, which is a lot more than "help today",
and yet we put out the "all hands" call because people want to get involved.

We're purport to be a structured, non-vigilantesque organization, yet we have this huge hole
in our response framework.

The last thing I would suggest is that this be anything onerous, or rely on outside training or curriculm, but it needs to be more then "gravitational attraction and respiration" as it is today.

[Eclipse]

Eclipse-

During floods, sometimes the water pressure in sewers push the manhole covers away. You are walking unexpectedly, and can have an accident or maybe even fall into one of these holes...

Flyer

I was telling my kids that exact thing earlier as they discussed walking through a flooded intersection.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Add a walking stick to the safety vest gear?

[Eclipse]

I'm not opposed to a "DR3" qualification, but coming up with the requirements and appropriate training curriculum/task guide would probably take longer and require more effort that using the CERT qualification. Is there a good reason this may not be feasible?

Actually, there is no reason individual wings cannot establish their own doctrine and training requirements for DR response.  Absent
something from NHQ, that is exactly what we will likely do.

The issue with CERT is that it would be generally reliant on outside agencies, and likely viewed as "one more gateway" to ES, whereas establishing some
reasonable training requirements that could be covered at the unit level by the ESO would not really be a big deal.  I'd guess it could be generally
cobbled together from a few existing tasks along with some DR training content freely available on the web.

[Eclipse]

Add a walking stick to the safety vest gear?

Must have a compass and sword.

[Storm Chaser]

Actually, there is no reason individual wings cannot establish their own doctrine and training requirements for DR response.  Absent something from NHQ, that is exactly what we will likely do.

That makes sense since DR requirements could be different between states, cities and other geographical areas. I would still like to see something set by National and supplemented by Wings/Groups as appropriate. Has this been addressed with NHQ already?

The issue with CERT is that it would be generally reliant on outside agencies, and likely viewed as "one more gateway" to ES, whereas establishing some reasonable training requirements that could be covered at the unit level by the ESO would not really be a big deal. I'd guess it could be generally cobbled together from a few existing tasks along with some DR training content freely available on the web.

Fair enough. Having control over the training and qualification process makes sense too. But I've never understood the purpose of the CERT qualification within CAP; that's why I asked the question.

[Eclipse]

Fair enough. Having control over the training and qualification process makes sense too. But I've never understood the purpose of the CERT qualification within CAP; that's why I asked the question.

There isn't one.  CERT was added a few years ago to OPS Quals in anticipation of CAP extending their ES scope into this area.  To date it hasn't done that.
Entering a CERT cert (see what I did there?) into OPS Quals serves very little purpose.

[a2capt]

Must have a compass and sword.

With rotating beacon and Personal EPIRB.

[ol'fido]

I don't think we need to go as far as GTM3 to go on a DR mission. I've been on a couple of dozen sandbagging, storm clean up, and DR type missions here in Southern Illinois through my work and with CAP( a few). For the most part, it does not take the skill level of a GTM3 to accomplish. If you were going to a Katrina type event, then yes, GTM3 as a minimum would probably be appropriate. But for sandbagging and most DR activities( clean up, water  and food distribution, transport) few if any special skills are needed. We would to take 40 or 50 inmates down to the area of a flood, give them a pile of sand, and a few thousand sand bags and then tell them to get it done. Long days but no real hazards. Our inmates(IDOC Boot Camp) are mainly 17-25 year olds with few if any skills or training and we haven't had any problems other than keeping them working.

Plus, since CAP is not a first responder type organization, many of the immediate hazards during and immediately after would already have been mitigated. In addition, most competent ICs in these situations will not put untrained individuals in areas where there could be a hazard. They realize that they are responsible for the health and safety of the mostly untrained volunteers that they get at these types of situations. Where you are going to run into problems is with small scale emergencies run by a small local fire or police department chief. Some of these guys are great and some of them are the mayor's cousin. Having a senior member along who can recognize when and where CAP can help and when it's time to say, "I don't think so" when asked to put his people in a potentially hazardous situation or area is key.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't give some basic training to anyone who goes on any kind of DR mission. I also believe thatwhen CAP says go do DR.  We ask"What's that mean?". "It depends..." seems to be the working doctrine. Competent senior leadership is the key. For the rest of the team, I would say that some sort of basic training would be sufficient.

In summary, I think we need a more informative doctrine for CAP's DR mission contributions and an organized response framework.

[Jaison009]

We (ARC) use unsolicited/spont/episodic volunteers for a lot of things and often times provide very little training depending on the position and role. Our standing rule is we can use them for 7 days until a BGC is required. We can also use youth/cadets except for sending them out of state. They cannot provide direct services to elderly or children alone and cannot function without supervision, be left in dormitories overnight, or allowed to handle any kind of financial instruments until a background check (ours) clears. Aside from those rules we can use them as needed for up to 7 days. CAP could be a strong asset as a partner to fed/state/local/NGOs.

This is part of why I think CAP needs to rebuild emphasis on DR work. As a former EM Director and CERT TTT, I also think CERT is a joke, misused for funding, and we aren't even going to open that can of worms. In situations such as using members for sandbagging, traffic control points, entrance/egress, runners for EOC/IC, multiple roles, etc.

During the 98 Floods in KY we did sandbagging throughout the entire state. In the Battlefield/Republic, MO Tornado in 2003, they were used to deliver water, food, bulk items, etc while firefighters such as myself did SAR and tasked missions.

That sounds great on paper (both figuratively and practically), but doesn't fly in th conservative culture which is CAP.

If anything, it runs 180 counter to the normal notion of "if it doesn't say you can't, you can",
and I don't know how we'd defend ourselves in a hearing room in the event that a member is injured, or hurts someone else.

"So, are we to understand that during the course of a mission, members are required to have special training to process base check-ins, but you allowed members to work in the field near a
dangerous flooding situation with no particular training or evaluation of capability?"

Flooded areas, for example, are going to be prone to downed power lines, stalled vehicles, rapidly outflow of water, not to mention
what happens if a levy or bag-wall breeches.  Heck, if nothing else we should be shoeing the proper way to pick up a 20-lb sandbag load.

I can't send an unqualified adult to do ramp checks at an airport on a sunny day, but it's OK to allow untrained cadets to throw sand in a DR?
Or help at a shelter?  Hand out food, etc?

The ARC would never allow that, and they do this a lot more then CAP does.

[♠SARKID♠]

We've got a fair amount of flooding in my wing right now  - it rained hard, some streets are closed, the commute was
really bad this am because some major roadways were blocked.  Basically an "inconvenience of biblical proportion".
Obviously for those directly affected it's anywhere from a PITA to legit tragedy, but it's not Sandy or Katrina by a long shot.
Basically, people in areas prone to flooding are getting flooding, the same way they do every time it rains this heavy.

We feel your pain.

[RiverAux]

You are asking for people that have never even been on a mission, not even a training mission so you do not know how they will act on a real mission.

Well, we have GES as a qualification for a reason.  Remember what it stands for GENERAL EMERGENCY SERVICES.  Sounds to me that in this situation CAP was asked to perform General ES tasks. 

Yes, there are some specific safety issues for this sort of mission, but those can be addressed by the mission safety brief. 

It isn't possible to "train" for most of these sorts of tasks, so GES is good enough for me.

My larger area of agreement with Eclipse is that CAP should probably generally be aiming to be more useful in these situations than just providing grunt labor.  Our overall lack of doctrine means that no one from the squadron to NHQ really knows what we WANT to do or SHOULD be doing so we end up generally not being asked to do anything or just given some random assignments.

Although sometimes grunt labor is exactly what is needed and there isn't anything wrong with doing it.