LRP class

[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.