Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 17, 2017, 08:54:14 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Emergency Services & Operations  |  Topic: Cadets In Es Letter
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All] Print
Author Topic: Cadets In Es Letter  (Read 30745 times)
arajca
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,158

« on: July 24, 2007, 05:30:22 PM »

This just came out on the COWG list:
Logged
isuhawkeye
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,305

John's web site
« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2007, 05:53:02 PM »

This type of clarification is way past due. 

Very few people understand the age restrictions set by our clients, and even fewer recognise the age restriction set forth in our  federal insurance
« Last Edit: July 24, 2007, 07:27:48 PM by isuhawkeye » Logged
JohnKachenmeister
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,352

« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2007, 01:00:59 PM »

What really needs to happen now is this letter policy should be translated into training guidance.  Why not incorporate into the Ground Team task manual Flight Line Marshaller skills and mission base support tasks?  That way a GT arriving with a GT leader and some cadet GT members could be used for SAR, or put to work at the base.
Logged
Another former CAP officer
floridacyclist
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 926

Tallahassee Composite Squadron
« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2007, 01:21:26 PM »

Some of it is already in the task guide. check out O-0422 - Direct team Actions on Find. We've expanded a little on this on our squadron and group mailing lists.
Logged
Gene Floyd, Capt CAP
Wearer of many hats, master of none (but senior-rated in two)
www.tallahasseecap.org
www.rideforfatherhood.org
JohnKachenmeister
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,352

« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2007, 07:17:50 PM »

I was considering actions such as flight line marshaller, public affairs/information, communications, and new areas such as food service and other support functions.
Logged
Another former CAP officer
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 10,920

« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2007, 10:19:15 PM »

Quote
Cadets under 18 shall not be exposed to conditions in which their health is
jeopardized by exposure to decomposing bodies and hazardous materials.

Hmmm, this would seem to preclude using cadets on ground team activities involving missing airplane searches.  Most of these searches end with finds of deceased passengers and pilots.  It is general policy (at least where I am -- I don't recall if it is an actual CAP reg) that only adults actually walk into the crash site itself leaving the cadets on the perimeter.  However, even if you take that precaution it would not be unheard of for body parts to be scattered about generally and for cadets to come in contact with them. 
Logged
ZigZag911
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,973

« Reply #6 on: July 26, 2007, 01:30:16 AM »

RiverAux, the precautions you take with your cadets seem to be generally accepted.....it will be interesting to see if this procedure meets National's understanding of the Nat'l CC's policy letter....I just got a chance to read it, and was happy to see this spelled out in some detail, I think we've lacked clear guidance on this subject.

As to utilizing younger cadets, cross training in a mission base specialty (flight line marshaller, mission radio operator, mission staff assistant) or getting some Red Cross training in disaster mitigation (like shelter management) can help with this.
Logged
floridacyclist
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 926

Tallahassee Composite Squadron
« Reply #7 on: July 26, 2007, 06:53:25 AM »

In answer to your questions about policy, This is part of the discussion that we had on our group list yesterday. I left it as intact as possible except that I edited out the parts before and after my email reply
Quote
*edit*
As a member of one of the mentioned "non-CAP ground teams" (we were actually inserted and recovered by helicopter) that spent time in downtown New Orleans in the first couple of days after Katrina and a certified CISM debriefer, I can vouch that a disaster "hot zone" is no place for cadets; it's not really a good place for adults either, but sometimes we have to suck it up and deal with it. For that matter, neither was coastal Mississippi for the first few days, especially until they recovered all the deceased. By the time that my 16yo and I travelled to Waveland, MS (3 weeks after the storm) to perform communications duty, it was marginally better - at least nobody was shooting at us. We were still prepared and willing to limit his activities to the ICP if we determined that it was too emotionally intense in the field.
 
One important training issue that I'd like to talk about is "Task #O-0422 Direct Team Actions on Find".  This often-overlooked task (when I do GTL evaluations, I am often told by the student that this covers getting all the information off of the ELT and the first time that a team found our real aircraft crash, the team fell apart as everyone went every which way) covers some very specific actions to take that should protect our cadets from experiencing anything they shouldn't. This is an important task for Officers to master and for cadets to understand as not only does it affect their physical and emotional safety, but the preservation of valuable evidence at a crash scene and the viability of cadet participation in Emergency Services itself. There is a persistent rumor that regulations or policy (according to who you are hearing the rumor from) prohibits cadets from participating in actual  ES missions, which as can be seen from the General's letter is not true. People not realizing that there are safeguards in place or not following those safeguards not only jeopardize cadet's mental health, but the entire concept of cadet participation in ES.
 
What Task O-0422 basically states is that the first thing a team does on locating a find (either a crash site or a missing person) is halt in place and only the team leader (and a backup safety person, although this is not in the task) should approach the find itself. They survey the area for both physical and emotional safety hazards, doing a complete 360 walkaround and only call other team members in as needed; if everyone is already dead, there is no need for further direct actions by the team and nobody else should enter the area until emergency personnel arrive.
 
On the other hand, if there are survivors, the team leader will have to make a decision as to who is qualified to provide assistance, a decision that should be made in advance. He may have to accept that in the course of providing life-saving first aid and stabilization, they may see something they shouldn't; this would probably not be a suitable job for a 13yo cadet with Advanced First Aid. Perhaps an older cadet or two or a couple of Officers with medical training would be better-suited for such a responsibility. At any rate, only those deemed necessary for saving lives are allowed inside the perimeter. Not only does this preserve the scene (which also may or may not be a crime scene), but it limits the number of people exposed to a potentially traumatic incident and preferably eliminates cadet exposure altogether.
 
The rest of the team is used to form a perimeter far enough away that direct view of the crash is not likely, to set up a staging area and guide emergency responders into the area, and to scout a path and clear it of debris and branches to make medical evacuation easier; as you can see, these are perfect jobs for cadets. Larger cadets can also be used to assist the emergency responders as relief litter bearers if the patient has to be carried for some distance to a clearing for vehicular or helicopter evacuation.
 
The remainder of the task goes over some of the other actions to take such as positively identifying the target (you may have found a pre-existing crash site), notifying mission base etc...all important steps but not as relevant to this memo from General Pineda and not as important in the context of keeping ES participation as a safe option for cadets.
 
Many of these same concepts can be applied to disaster relief, ie the team leader putting the team on hold and scouting ahead (with backup - the buddy system is absolutely mandatory) for possible physical and emotional hazards before taking the team into any situation where there is the slightest risk. This does not mean that it is OK to use our cadets for hardcore Urban Search and Rescue as long as we follow the above guidelines, only that not all disaster zones are going to be on the scale of Katrina and good judgement and common sense should always prevail whether we're responding into a disaster zone to work at the ICP/EOC, doing welfare checks on our neighbors or deploying to a POD to hand out food, ice, and water.
 
Emergency Services is one of the few things that sets us apart from JROTC, Aviation Explorers, Young Marines, Sea Cadets etc and is what keeps many of our cadets involved in CAP. It is also one of the most effective tools we have at not only teaching leadership skills to our cadets, but giving them a hands-on environment for practicing those same skills (as opposed to simply reading about them from a book) and teaching them that there are much greater things to be concerned with than their own comfort and convenience. If we are not careful in following the guidelines laid out for us, not only do we run the risk of possibly scarring a young person for life, but we also endanger this valuable opportunity for cadets to grow, learn, and feel proud of themselves, all while helping others.
*edit*
« Last Edit: July 26, 2007, 07:04:57 AM by floridacyclist » Logged
Gene Floyd, Capt CAP
Wearer of many hats, master of none (but senior-rated in two)
www.tallahasseecap.org
www.rideforfatherhood.org
Jolt
Forum Regular

Posts: 159

« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2007, 10:25:24 AM »

Quote
Cadets under 18 shall not be exposed to conditions in which their health is
jeopardized by exposure to decomposing bodies and hazardous materials.

Hmmm, this would seem to preclude using cadets on ground team activities involving missing airplane searches.  Most of these searches end with finds of deceased passengers and pilots.  It is general policy (at least where I am -- I don't recall if it is an actual CAP reg) that only adults actually walk into the crash site itself leaving the cadets on the perimeter.  However, even if you take that precaution it would not be unheard of for body parts to be scattered about generally and for cadets to come in contact with them. 

I don't know about other squadrons, but none of our senior members have medical training (just basic first aid).  We do, however, have medically trained cadets to include one EMT-I (19), one MRT (15?), and I'll be an EMT-B in a little while (16).  I have a little bit of a problem with non-medical senior members (officers, whatever) being the only ones to walk into a crash site.  What if they walk up, see a pilot hunched over the controls and not moving, come back to the rest of the team and say, "There's no reason for anyone else to go in, the pilot's dead," (or some such) when really he's just unconscious?  Someone that the GTL thinks is dead may be someone that a trained cadet would try to resuscitate.  I'm not talking about obvious signs of death (decapitation, etc.), but just because the victim's not breathing and doesn't have a pulse doesn't mean you should tape up the area and stay out because it's a crime scene.  That's a distinction I'm not 100% sure everyone could make.

Take it for what it's worth.  The bottom line is that I would rather the 19 year-old cadet EMT-I with a few years of experience walk into the crash scene to assess the situation than the senior member that took a basic first aid/CPR course a few years back.
Logged
arajca
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,158

« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2007, 11:05:43 AM »

Legally, your preferences are moot. CAP has made the determination. Besides, it takes how long to get to the crash site? One, two, three, hours? A day? More? What is the likelihood of a pilot not breathing for that length of time being a viable patient. Or even half that length? Let's assume, for a moment, you happen to witness the crash while out on a training mission. The SM's make a check and find the pilot not breathing, no pulse. Do you carry the necessary equipment to do anything more than CPR? Is your team capable of doing CPR for an extended period of time until EMS arrives? What came first - the crash killing the pilot or the pilot dying and crashing? That is one reason why - at least in my area - trauma death is a contraidicator for AED use.

First Aid also teaches the basics. You remember A B C's. If I arrive at a crash scene and see the pilot slumped over the wheel, I check ABC's. If the ABC's are failed, that's as far as I go.

I'm an EMT with 10 years of fire department experience. If a First Aid qualified member tells me they checked the ABC's and found nothing, I'd take their word for it in this instance.
Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 10,920

« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2007, 11:26:52 AM »

You do bring up something that wasn't adequately addressed by the letter -- the fact that we have cadets over the age of 18.  If they're old enough to go to Iraq, they should be old enough to do all CAP ES work.  Now, if the requesting agency says "No cadets" that would knock out those over 18.  And using the term cadet for those of that age is somewhat misleading.  While ROTC and the academies use cadets for their members, who are over 18 we use for all of ours no matter their age.  The CAP cadet program should end at 18 and those 18-21 should be full senior members if they're in CAP. 

Logged
Jolt
Forum Regular

Posts: 159

« Reply #11 on: July 29, 2007, 11:51:45 AM »

What about cases of hypothermia?  I live in the North and it's a possibility.  What if there was a faint pulse or the patient was in some kind of extreme bradycardia and the senior member checking it didn't check long enough?

I see what you're saying, but I can't imagine you wouldn't go check for yourself.  It's just an assurance.  And it's not as though you would be scarred because of it.  You've likely seen worse in your ten years as a firefighter/EMT.

Again, 150+ hours of training for an EMT vs. ~8 hours of basic first aid and CPR.
Logged
arajca
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,158

« Reply #12 on: July 29, 2007, 02:59:18 PM »

What about cases of hypothermia?  I live in the North and it's a possibility.  What if there was a faint pulse or the patient was in some kind of extreme bradycardia and the senior member checking it didn't check long enough?
Do you carry the proper equipment to do something about hypothermia? Remember, without proper rewarming, the transport out can kill the hypothermic patient. I'm very familiar with the "warm and dead" rule.

I'll see your "I live in the North" and raise you one "I live at 9300' above sea level". Add hypoxia to the mix. Most of the SAR mission around me (non-CAP) start in the valleys (9000'+) and go up rapidly.

Quote
I see what you're saying, but I can't imagine you wouldn't go check for yourself.  It's just an assurance. 
I would, but only after the rest of the sceen has been secured. Although, as an EMT, I would most likely be the one checking in the first place.

Quote
And it's not as though you would be scarred because of it.  You've likely seen worse in your ten years as a firefighter/EMT.
True, and becuase of that, I wouldn't put a cadet - regardless of their qualifications - in a crash site with bodies.

Quote
Again, 150+ hours of training for an EMT vs. ~8 hours of basic first aid and CPR.
How much of the 150+ hours is spent on ABC's? True, EMT's may get more practice, but the classroom component of ABC's is about the same. More time is spent on the initial "Sick/Not Sick" judgement.
Logged
Jolt
Forum Regular

Posts: 159

« Reply #13 on: July 29, 2007, 03:09:06 PM »

I know I'm starting to stray from the topic at this point, but could there be an additional set of training added to the GTL tasks that includes recognition of obvious signs of death (rigor mortis, dependent lividity, obvious mortal injury) so that we know the GTL is making the right call about whether it's a crime scene or not and no one goes in unnecessarily?

Just a thought.
Logged
arajca
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,158

« Reply #14 on: July 29, 2007, 03:56:50 PM »

It's a good thought.
Logged
ZigZag911
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,973

« Reply #15 on: July 29, 2007, 04:29:19 PM »

Agencies requesting CAP assistance generally don't care about the individual's status within our organization, just their age & training.

Requests with age limitations generally come in 'over 21 only' (very rare), 'over 18', or 'over 16'.
Logged
Johnny Yuma
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 592

« Reply #16 on: August 09, 2007, 09:10:40 PM »

Another example of CAP the Corporation getting in the way of the Mission of CAP the USAF/AUX. As a CAP GTL on a mission I will make the decision at that time who is qualified and who isn't to accompany me into a target site, not some lawyer in Alabama.

If that means I take an 18 year old EMT and a 16 year old First Responder who are cadets in to a crash site then NHQ, Incorporated can deal with me afterward.
Logged
"And Saint Attila raised the Holy Hand Grenade up on high saying, "Oh Lord, Bless us this Holy Hand Grenade, and with it smash our enemies to tiny bits. And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs, and stoats, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and lima bean-"
 
" Skip a bit, brother."
 
"And then the Lord spake, saying: "First, shalt thou take out the holy pin. Then shalt thou count to three. No more, no less. "Three" shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the counting shall be three. "Four" shalt thou not count, and neither count thou two, execpting that thou then goest on to three. Five is RIGHT OUT. Once the number three, being the third number be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade to-wards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuffit. Amen."

Armaments Chapter One, verses nine through twenty-seven:
RocketPropelled
Recruit

Posts: 49

« Reply #17 on: August 09, 2007, 11:57:14 PM »

Another example of CAP the Corporation getting in the way of the Mission of CAP the USAF/AUX. As a CAP GTL on a mission I will make the decision at that time who is qualified and who isn't to accompany me into a target site, not some lawyer in Alabama.

If that means I take an 18 year old EMT and a 16 year old First Responder who are cadets in to a crash site then NHQ, Incorporated can deal with me afterward.

The 18-year-old cadet EMT would probably be okay in most situations, but it depends on whom you're working for.

On the ground, there's the whole other nonspecific can of worms that NHQ was actually trying to address with the policy letter.

The point is this:  Many of our missions aren't direct "AFRCC Says March, So Go Find Me An Airplane" missions.  We're doing ground work to support other agencies (FAA, state EMA, local sheriff's department, local EMA, you name it) -- and those agencies do not (and often legally cannot) support the structure for volunteers under age 18. Period. Game, set, match.

They don't want under-18 volunteers on site -- not because they hate kids, or don't respect our training procedures (though some do, and some don't, obviously), but because their regulations and insurance limitations simply don't cover that specific case. And in a vacuum, they choose to exclude those volunteers -- which they're well empowered to do.

It's not NHQ you'd have to answer to here -- it's the local Sheriff, the EMA director, or another past, present, or future "client."  Their response isn't going to be "Johnny Yuma's a real gung-ho character, using all available assets to complete the mission," it's going to be "who is this CAP guy, taking kids on a search when we specifically told them OVER 18 ONLY?!"  Next thing you know, CAP's officially uninvited to participate in the future.  Party's over, and we have only ourselves to blame. Or more specifically, the one officer who decided his personal needs outweighed the bigger picture.

I've seen several bridges burned in some sensitive places, and CAP is off the "invite list," sometimes permanently and irreparably, over things like this.  It's the real deal, not some paranoid NHQ PR strategy.  We train a lot of very qualified cadets, ones I'd be happy to have at my side, and who'd have my back on a mission -- but if the customers don't want them there, for whatever reason, it's our job to respect their needs and requirements.

"CAP the Corporation" has to lay down a lot of blanket rules and regs to cover the patchwork of local municipalities, overlapping jurisdictions, and individual egos.  That's a pretty big blanket -- essentially it's forming a policy to cover each case wholesale.  If the customers want 18+, it's our job to either provide 18+ assets, or to step aside. It's not our job to sell field-qualified cadets when the balloon goes up. It's our job to do our taskings within the parameters we're given, be that weather, timing, or local policy.

As the GTL, you can pick any qualified asset you want on your team -- within the limits of any local policies and procedures for the lead agency.  If you're working for the state EMA, and the state EMA says "adults only," you'd better start carding your team at sign-in.  Or you'd better have brought a good batch of Starbucks, cause you're staffing the coffee pot for the duration.
Logged
ZigZag911
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,973

« Reply #18 on: August 10, 2007, 01:33:32 AM »

Another example of CAP the Corporation getting in the way of the Mission of CAP the USAF/AUX. As a CAP GTL on a mission I will make the decision at that time who is qualified and who isn't to accompany me into a target site, not some lawyer in Alabama.

If that means I take an 18 year old EMT and a 16 year old First Responder who are cadets in to a crash site then NHQ, Incorporated can deal with me afterward.

How about the IC running the mission?  Time permitting (and realistically, by the time we find survivors, if they've made it that long, a few more minutes probably won't matter) will you consult with IC?

If so, what if you did not like the answer?

The policy letter is meant to describe broad parameters.

Exceptional circumstances may demand extraordinary decisions & actions.

But I would expect this to be the exception rather than the rule.
Logged
isuhawkeye
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,305

John's web site
« Reply #19 on: August 10, 2007, 09:02:26 AM »

this letter did not dictate policy, it simply asked for people to take these item into consideration when deploying your team. 
Logged
JohnKachenmeister
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,352

« Reply #20 on: August 10, 2007, 10:22:31 AM »

Rocket P:

Well said.  I was waiting to calm down before I addressed that.  You took the words right out of my fingertips (and cleaned them up a little).

The policy letter gives guidance.  If I had under-18 cadets, I would feel free to use them on the mission in support of our own operations (Mission base staff, radio operators, etc.) but just not in the field.

I really don't see a problem here.
Logged
Another former CAP officer
BlackKnight
Seasoned Member

Posts: 221
Unit: SER-GA-043

Rome Composite Squadron
« Reply #21 on: August 10, 2007, 11:15:26 AM »

Paragraph 2 of Maj. Gen. Pineda's letter clearly gives everyone some wiggle room here (emphasis mine):

2. The Requesting Agency Sets the Scope of CAP's Response. Our customers tell us what
assistance they need. Our customers may have minimum age restrictions. CAP shall honor those
restrictions. That does not mean that CAP’s adult officers should discourage use of our cadets
especially when discussing our capabilities with external customers.
We all know how capable
and mature our cadets are, and we should do whatever we reasonably can to show other agencies
what they can do as well. While our cadets represent the finest among our nation’s youth, adult
officers must remain alert to ensure that unnecessary risks are avoided
. Cadets are our
organization’s future.


The way I interpret this is that where there are ironclad contractual restrictions in our MOUs, we honor those.  (Obviously! Anyone who knowingly attempts an end-run on our MOUs should be suspended from ES duties.)  Where there are not contractual restrictions, the responsibility for how to use our personnel resources (including cadets) to best accomplish the mission is left up to the IC and the team leaders in the field.  And that's the right place for it.

The fastest way to get to where we want to be, e.g., maximum utilization of all properly trained CAP personnel, is to develop a national reputation for playing by the rules (no hot-dogging) and being the best at what we do.   This means any and all personal agendas must be tabled once the SAR request comes in. 

Logged
Phil Boylan, Maj, CAP
DCS, Rome Composite Sqdn - GA043
http://www.romecap.org/
Johnny Yuma
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 592

« Reply #22 on: January 24, 2008, 03:45:06 PM »

You guys didn't get my point.

Team makeup is based on IC/OPS approval and they have final say on who's on the team. Once they'e signed off on the sortie I'll determine who does what job on my teams as the GTL.

I'm going to put the proverbial round peg in the round hole. If that means I have cadets I feel are qualified to do a job they'll get tasked to do that.

I've known of cadets working ES whose experiences ranged from newbie Seniors to cadets who were EMT's, even Nurse Aides who worked with Hospice. I even know of a cadet whose parents owned a mortuary and was learning the family business OJT. It doesn't take a lawyer in Alabama to figure out who's guiding the paid help (fire/EMS/LE) into a crash site to who's helping the coroner if he asks for assistance.

Logged
"And Saint Attila raised the Holy Hand Grenade up on high saying, "Oh Lord, Bless us this Holy Hand Grenade, and with it smash our enemies to tiny bits. And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs, and stoats, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and lima bean-"
 
" Skip a bit, brother."
 
"And then the Lord spake, saying: "First, shalt thou take out the holy pin. Then shalt thou count to three. No more, no less. "Three" shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the counting shall be three. "Four" shalt thou not count, and neither count thou two, execpting that thou then goest on to three. Five is RIGHT OUT. Once the number three, being the third number be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade to-wards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuffit. Amen."

Armaments Chapter One, verses nine through twenty-seven:
SJFedor
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,691

« Reply #23 on: January 24, 2008, 04:44:49 PM »

I'm sorry, I have to lighten up the mood here...
...even Nurse Aides who worked with Hospice...

Those are probably the cadets you want to keep FARTHEST away from the victims  ;D


Not only that, I now find no record of Pineda's ES ICL on the NHQ website. I see all the ICLs that our current CAP/CC renewed (good commander!) but that letter isn't one of them. So, wouldn't this now negate the whole purpose of the thread?
Logged
Steven Fedor, NREMT-P
Master Ambulance Driver
Former Capt, MP, MCPE, MO, MS, GTL, and various other 3-and-4 letter combinations
NESA MAS Instructor, 2008-2010 (#479)
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 10,920

« Reply #24 on: January 24, 2008, 07:37:34 PM »

This was not an interim change letter, so it wouldn't be there.  It was what I would call an "advisory" memo letting you know the commander's intent. 
Logged
notaNCO forever
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 647

« Reply #25 on: January 27, 2008, 07:51:36 PM »

I don't have any see any problems with a cadet being on a GT as long as the GTL is smart enough to only have mature cadets on the GT. I do think there should be a minimum age of 16 or 18. Hopefully the GT is EMT qualified but if not and it's a absolute emergency of a victims health and you have a cadet EMT a would rather forget a reg once and save a persons life instead of going "It's against regs will have to let him die.
Logged
Jolt
Forum Regular

Posts: 159

« Reply #26 on: January 27, 2008, 08:07:12 PM »

I don't have any see any problems with a cadet being on a GT as long as the GTL is smart enough to only have mature cadets on the GT. I do think there should be a minimum age of 16 or 18. Hopefully the GT is EMT qualified but if not and it's a absolute emergency of a victims health and you have a cadet EMT a would rather forget a reg once and save a persons life instead of going "It's against regs will have to let him die.

In the event of an actual medical emergency on a mission, I'm relatively certain that our first aid certified GTL will let the cadet EMT-I, EMT-B, and MRT on our team take care of the patient.
Logged
NavLT
Member

Posts: 85

« Reply #27 on: June 25, 2008, 12:00:48 PM »

I have always had a problem with trying to sort capabilities based on any single standard. Age, Rank, etc.

I think the letter from the CC makes it clear that care and consideration should be taken in the employment of any CAP resource.

With the particular question of this string "Cadets in ES" I would say that a IC or GBD or GTL needs to carefully look at what they have and decide based on the Mission what resources to employ.

I am a 20 year member with all the bells and whistles in ES.  I am also a Paramedic and an IC outside of CAP.  I will take a proffesional CAP Cadet over a over enthused adult any day of the week but not all cadets are professional.

With reguards to the medical question.  I would fall back to the my state understanding...."The Highest trained individual is in-charge of medical care".  So if the Crash site has a living but injured passenger then the EMT-I cadet gets the job.  CPR aside dead is dead and unless they crashed within site of the road they are probably not recoverable but anything short of dead gets the best we have.

I would also point out that CAP is a First Aid Agency so the highest trained has the know how to make decisions but they should not have any ACLS toys with them or they go beyond CAP's Scope.

V/R
Lt J.
Logged
grp3eso
Recruit

Posts: 9

« Reply #28 on: November 26, 2010, 03:17:10 PM »

please look at capr 60-3 para 1-24(f) where is says CAP is NOT a medical organization (first aid and up)
in my view once a member starts first aid, they are automatically signed out of the mission and now working on the medical card they hold. i believe that the first aid requirements that are on the STQRs are for taking care of the team members if needed.
Logged
HGjunkie
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,616

« Reply #29 on: November 26, 2010, 03:40:03 PM »

Hmmm... another necro post?
Logged
••• retired
C1C USAFA
N Harmon
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 776
Unit: GLR-MI-063

Monroe Composite Squadron
« Reply #30 on: November 26, 2010, 05:57:31 PM »

in my view once a member starts first aid, they are automatically signed out of the mission

How does that work?  It seems rather hypocritical for us to decide someone is "signed out" of a mission simply because they come across someone in the course of their CAP duty who is bleeding and they render aid in the form of direct pressure on the wound while someone else calls 9-1-1. I mean, we reward that sort of behavior with our third-highest decoration. It would be bizarre for us to also punish it by dropping that person's FECA/FTCA coverage.
Logged
NATHAN A. HARMON, Capt, CAP
Monroe Composite Squadron
a2capt
300,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,095
Unit: pǝʇɹǝʌuı

« Reply #31 on: November 26, 2010, 06:27:00 PM »

I presume that wouldn't hold up in court either, due to the ambiguity of when the 'sign out' actually occurred in a timeline of events that depended on the status of that person and their actions.

So a ground team comes across someone bleeding in the roadway. Someone is now automatically signed out, and the rest of the team is now penalized since they are no longer a fully staffed, thus incomplete resource?

No, they fall back as a UDF team of three, someone might say.  .. Except UDF in the middle of BFE is kind of.. stretching it.

I hope that Group 3 isn't CAWG, because I'll have to be careful who I team up with incase that scenario happens.
Logged
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 10,583

« Reply #32 on: November 26, 2010, 09:51:25 PM »

in my view once a member starts first aid, they are automatically signed out of the mission

How does that work?  It seems rather hypocritical for us to decide someone is "signed out" of a mission simply because they come across someone in the course of their CAP duty who is bleeding and they render aid in the form of direct pressure on the wound while someone else calls 9-1-1. I mean, we reward that sort of behavior with our third-highest decoration. It would be bizarre for us to also punish it by dropping that person's FECA/FTCA coverage.

Not to mention that First Aid IS for search targets and CAP members is in fact authorisesed.
The Group 3 ESO needs to read 60-1 again.
Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Pacific Region
HGjunkie
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,616

« Reply #33 on: November 27, 2010, 01:31:29 AM »

Group 3 for CAWG or FLWG?   ???
Logged
••• retired
C1C USAFA
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,058
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #34 on: November 27, 2010, 04:12:31 AM »

Or maybe some other wing with a Group 3.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,980

« Reply #35 on: November 27, 2010, 11:31:41 AM »

please look at capr 60-3 para 1-24(f) where is says CAP is NOT a medical organization (first aid and up)
in my view once a member starts first aid, they are automatically signed out of the mission and now working on the medical card they hold. i believe that the first aid requirements that are on the STQRs are for taking care of the team members if needed.

Yes, time for some review of the regs, and perhaps a consultation with your wing OPS staff.  CAP members are not prohibited from rendering aid within their level of training (and personal ORM).

CAP, Inc., is not, by mission, a medical service agency, therefore it does not provide training, certification, or any guarantee of medical response by its members.  There is a difference between that and not rendering aid.

Most LEA's are not considered medical responder agencies, either, but their members have at least advanced first aid training if not more.  However, if an untrained LEO hangs an IV and the patient dies of sepsis, that LEO is likely to be in some trouble, same as CAP.

CAP members with proper training can provide even advanced medical assistance, but their liability protection for anything beyond the community-level first aid that CAP requires would come from their personal certification, insurance, and affiliations.  CAP, Inc., will not stand behind you.

Yes, this is a rock and a hard place for members in "duty to respond" states.  So we advise members with that conflict not to participate in CAP duties that would put them in an ethical paradox.  If they choose to involve themselves, anyway, it is at their own risk.

This is why any commander or activity director with common sense tells members who show up to missions with backboards, oxygen, and IV bags to "stow them or go home" (if not just "go home), because clearly there is an expectation that they would be used "in an emergency", and that sets up a situation that could put CAP, Inc., at risk unnecessarily and without authorization.

No, they fall back as a UDF team of three, someone might say.  .. Except UDF in the middle of BFE is kind of.. stretching it.

Not all GTM's are rated as UDF.  Many are, but there is a difference between the two.

I don't agree with any assertion that members can get "auto-signed-out", or that when a team loses a member they just reconstitute as "other" and continue to do the same things.

That is a whole-scale skirting of the regs designed to protect us both legally and physically.  A team comes across an accident, they call 9-1-1, render aid within our guidelines and wait for EMS.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2010, 11:46:51 AM by Eclipse » Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

a2capt
300,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,095
Unit: pǝʇɹǝʌuı

« Reply #36 on: November 27, 2010, 01:36:06 PM »

Not all GTM's are rated as UDF.  Many are, but there is a difference between the two.
I realize that, I didn't completely finish that out, but should have also had, "..under the presumption that the members in the field all earned UDF along that road to GTM/L.


...and that the IC disbanded the team and re-tasked them as UDF to make things all proper.

Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,980

« Reply #37 on: November 27, 2010, 03:37:01 PM »

^ Which I think you basically agree is a bad idea.

Any tasking which originally required a GT, doesn't magically become a UDF-task because you don't have a full GT, and any tasking
that is UDF-worthy, should not have had a full GT to start with,m since that is a waste of resources.

You would also need new 106's, ORM (which is likely to be higher now), and telling people all over ICS that the universe has changed.

The fact that we probably do this all the time doesn't make it a good idea.

There's also the issue of the "missing man" - this random guy who is all by himself doing field surgery because he "signed out". The limited civil reach of CAP authority not withstanding, if you value your membership, you don't leave a mission until authorized to do so.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

RADIOMAN015
Banned

Posts: 1,990

« Reply #38 on: November 28, 2010, 02:35:03 PM »


There's also the issue of the "missing man" - this random guy who is all by himself doing field surgery because he "signed out". The limited civil reach of CAP authority not withstanding, if you value your membership, you don't leave a mission until authorized to do so.

Hmm, as the example above, I really don't see this as happening; HOWEVER, surely a member who has been up all day long working being called in for a mission may find they are just too tired to safely go on after lets say midnight or 0100 hrs local and will advise the IC prior to that time that they will have to leave the mission.  I know now in our wing most of the ELT signals (unless there's a high probability that it is an actual emergency, based upon geographic location)  are no longer chased down after midnight.  If the signal is still present the next day, at first light another team will be sent out.
RM 
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,980

« Reply #39 on: November 28, 2010, 02:54:18 PM »

^^ What does this have to do with cadets in ES, or the more recent angle of a member signing out and providing medical care?
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

bosshawk
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,588

« Reply #40 on: November 28, 2010, 03:08:32 PM »

At least it hasn't turned into a uniform post.
Logged
Paul M. Reed
Col, USA(ret)
Former CAP Lt Col
Wilson #2777
HGjunkie
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,616

« Reply #41 on: November 28, 2010, 04:22:43 PM »

At least it hasn't turned into a uniform post.
Had to bring it up, didn't you?  ;D
Logged
••• retired
C1C USAFA
SAR Officer
Recruit

Posts: 13
Unit: GLR-OH-288

288th Pathfinder Cadet Squadron
« Reply #42 on: December 11, 2011, 10:40:05 AM »

I have been reading the post on Cadets in ES missions and as a Commander and GTL it becomes a question of all the points that have been made.....Do we? or Don't we? or Can we? use cadets in the field....


I do my best to meet all the requirements or limitations for cadets when my team prepares for different missions...The best advise I can give is when in training create a perimeter standard for the cadets to get use to (stopping point at the scene)....Just like a staging area at a IC location...These cadets can get the equipment ready, prepare supplies, take notes from your communications officer and be prepared to assist when allowed based on the requirements....Once the scene is secured or deemed cadet approved then they can assist closer if warranted.
 
Sometimes in certain situations you will have to make decisions based on the need and you may have to do it on your own until the next level of rescue arrives.....



That is one reason for the Good Samaritan Law - 



Logged
Richard Fugate, CAPT. CAP
Commander - SAR Officer
288th Pathfinders Squadron
Middletown, Ohio
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,980

« Reply #43 on: December 11, 2011, 12:37:41 PM »

I have been reading the post on Cadets in ES missions and as a Commander and GTL it becomes a question of all the points that have been made.....Do we? or Don't we? or Can we? use cadets in the field...

We do and we should, however one of these days we will realize that "GT is not a cadet thing" and for us to be serious about it we
need to understand that we need as many or more seniors involved as cadets, with cadets having the opportunity to augment
when they can, not as the primary force.

Few cadets can respond at 1am, or even 1pm on a week day, so having them be the majority of the personnel simply sets up the situation
we are in today.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 10,920

« Reply #44 on: December 11, 2011, 01:58:55 PM »

however one of these days we will realize that "GT is not a cadet thing" and for us to be serious about it we
need to understand that we need as many or more seniors involved as cadets, with cadets having the opportunity to augment
when they can, not as the primary force.

I agree that the "GT is a cadet thing" attitude that is found within the CAP leadership as well as the perception from outside CAP that our ground teams are just a bunch of kids has been the primary reason that CAP isn't a major force in GSAR despite the fact that we are the largest GSAR organization in the US.  Sadly, both perceptions are true -- GT work in reality is a cadet thing in CAP.  Unless CAP starts fielding ground teams that are mostly made up of adults we're not going to be taken seriously no matter how well the cadets on ground teams are trained.  Sheriffs are not going to consider 13 and 14 year olds as real SAR resources. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that cadets shouldn't be on ground teams.  But so long as they are the majority of our GT members we're not going to really get many GT missions. 
Logged
jimmydeanno
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,155
Unit: ǝnƃoɹ

« Reply #45 on: December 14, 2011, 12:11:07 PM »

"It's a cadet thing" is perpetuated because the average age of senior members is hovering between 55 and 60 years old.  Unless CAP can somehow recruit enough 20's and 30's something senior members, I doubt that the attitude will change.  That is, if we're actually talking about GTM, CERT, etc.  The amount of 50+ senior members trekking through the woods, moving sandbags, etc, will be next to zero. 
Logged
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill
SAR Officer
Recruit

Posts: 13
Unit: GLR-OH-288

288th Pathfinder Cadet Squadron
« Reply #46 on: December 17, 2011, 03:19:49 PM »

I agree on the cadet situation on SAR activities that are not training exercises....Half of my unit has completed multiple levels of GTM and we train 1 weekend a month from February to October each year plus the Wing sponsored training's along with multiple unit SAREX's.
I believe that someday soon we may have the means to be used more often....And cadets can still have a great impact on those missions if used correctly as intended and not as First Responders.....Most of the units I have had the great opportunity to work with mimic our unit abilities with Seniors that have First Responder, EMT, Law Enforcement, Fire Fighter, Ect and have the drive and means to get the job done while still using the Cadets at levels that do not expose them to certain parts of the mission....


Training we expose them completely for learning and mentoring purposes....My Cadets are willing to do what it takes...But I will still limit that exposure when its real....and follow regs and chain of command for the cadets safety and well being....
Logged
Richard Fugate, CAPT. CAP
Commander - SAR Officer
288th Pathfinders Squadron
Middletown, Ohio
Matt Kenyon
Recruit

Posts: 25
Unit: NCR-MO-023

« Reply #47 on: May 25, 2014, 12:56:06 AM »

Very interesting read. This would be a good one to print and post on the next ES meeting.
Logged
Stomping sacred cows, and eating pork on fridays, since 1999...
CAPF 2B available on request.
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,075
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #48 on: May 25, 2014, 01:20:29 AM »

Oh look! I was a C/Capt back then!
Logged
Theodore
Recruit

Posts: 47

« Reply #49 on: April 11, 2016, 01:58:46 PM »

I dont get it. You can become a Jr. Firefighter/EMT on a Fire Department, or a Jr. Deputy/ Police Explorer at 16, and respond to emergencies way more frequent than CAP, but no one questions that. Yet, we perform SAR and they put age restrictions on us. All these paper pushes should join a Ground Team every once in a while.
Logged
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,676

« Reply #50 on: April 11, 2016, 02:08:00 PM »

I dont get it. You can become a Jr. Firefighter/EMT on a Fire Department, or a Jr. Deputy/ Police Explorer at 16, and respond to emergencies way more frequent than CAP, but no one questions that. Yet, we perform SAR and they put age restrictions on us. All these paper pushes should join a Ground Team every once in a while.

What don't you get? In CAP, you can become a GTM3 at 12 years old, which is more than you can say from other organizations. That said, there are certain things minors should not be exposed to such as corpses or dismembered bodies. Depending on the incident we're responding to, it's not only appropriate, but our duty to limit this exposure and ensure the safety and wellbeing of our cadets. 
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,980

« Reply #51 on: April 11, 2016, 02:14:56 PM »

^+1 and the below

I dont get it. You can become a Jr. Firefighter/EMT on a Fire Department, or a Jr. Deputy/ Police Explorer at 16, and respond to emergencies way more frequent than CAP, but no one questions that. Yet, we perform SAR and they put age restrictions on us. All these paper pushes should join a Ground Team every once in a while.

Many of our cadets are under 16, some as young as 12.  Yes, there's a big difference.

You might be able to become an EMT in some jurisdictions at 16, but you aren't a "jr. Deputy", and Police & fire Explores are just that, career exploration, you aren't the thing you're exploring at that age.

In the majority of cases, the customer, not CAP places the age limits, generally 18, and that's out of CAP's hands.  Those Jrs wouldn't be allowed in those cases where FEMA has jurisdiction either.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 939
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #52 on: April 11, 2016, 04:08:18 PM »

Theodore, (thanks for invoking the Necro Thread):


On your qualification point:  it would be a very, VERY rare cadet indeed who I'd sign off within one year of joining at age 12. Almost all of our GTM3*s take between a year and a half to two years to complete all requirements, including field problems and at least two numbered AFAMs (training or actual). Thirty years ago, it took me a year and a half, and it now takes my units cadets at least as long to meet a signoff recommendation from our SET GTLs.


On your "perform SAR" point:  call outs are a second matter, where I (and the GTLs under my command) select and form a team tailored for each alert, based on the type of mission call out (from urban DF, to an ELT high probability, to a missing aircraft, DR threat, etc.) and on the individual skill set and maturity of the available GTMs. The team may or may not include cadets, based purely on those threat and skill set match factors. The Explorer and other programs I've known do the same: no one takes a VFD cadet on a risky multiple alarm call out before he has full turn out gear and significant lower tier experience under his belt.


On actual employment: task assignment should be on an individual basis as well, both on a selection and a delegation basis. We do this when selecting aircrew (e.g. this guy has mountain tickets, this guy isn't instrument rated, and so forth) and we do it with ground teams when we trust experienced team leaders to know when and where to use selected members.

Example:  as an IC (and GBD) I turned down a team (Maryland Wing, actual missing aircraft on Catoctin Mountain, late 90s) containing entirely older adult members, because of their skill set and fitness levels, while deploying two cadet-heavy GTs to search two heavily wooded, steep ridge lines along the inner and middle markers (where one found the wreck). The (trusted, experienced) GTLs of the two cadet heavy teams knew to follow procedure to hold their team back from the site, limiting exposure to all members, regardless of age. That was just good assignment and operational risk management - appropriate discrimination to match asset to task - not inappropriate discrimination against youthful cadets or older officers.


I sense that you may be frustrated at what you see as a conspiracy to keep you away from legitimate contributions in the ES mission, and I empathize. We have had officers (ICs, even) who have been found to knowingly (and against CAP policy) discriminate against members because they were female, a minority, or young, and ONLY on those bases without considering ability and experience. Yet, by and large there is no conspiracy, at least from those of us who have been doing this for decades and know how to safely pick assets to prosecute the mission. You should be commended for wanting to help out, and CAP policy is to not restrict access to these activities on the basis of age, yet we do discriminate on the basis of mission and task suitability, as I've tried to explain. Please don't take it personally if you haven't - YET!!! - had a chance to demonstrate that you've got what it takes. Keep plugging away at being the best you can be, keep advancing and expanding your skill set, and keep participating in the ES mission to the limit you can, and the effort will pay off with selection and employment in the long run.


Finally, your Wing and Region may differ from others, and our SAR/DR customer base differs widely. Many of my state of Georgia customers (GEMA and local) are quite open to cadets on our teams - once they understand that we adhere to standards and know what we're doing, that we stay in our swim lane and within our training limits, and that we are a good risk/benefit trade, regardless of age. Some counties and agencies may impose an 18+ limit, which folds into our deployment policies and MOUs on a case by case basis. So, there's not a widespread, majority rule across the US for age 18+, by any means. Your locality may vary. In mine, we just took several cadets with our team on a multi agency SAREX, with very positive feedback from USCG and state officials on their knowledge, skills, abilities and deportment, which helps open doors to understanding and future cooperative work.

http://www.lakesidenews.com/drill-fine-tunes-search-and-rescue


Stick with it. This isn't (or shouldn't be) a business where you should expect to blow through some simple quals and jump right into risky missions. If you want to do this, accept that you may need to stay in it for the long haul.


V/R
Spam







Logged
Spaceman3750
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,608

« Reply #53 on: April 11, 2016, 04:38:33 PM »

It's interesting, I recently defended the use of cadets in SAR to one of the local SAR teams once.

The line was "we trained with CAP once [forever ago] and they brought a bunch of kids with them".

My response was "Yes, sir. The reality of CAP is that we do use youth searchers in some of our operations. You should know that they train to the exact same standards that our adult members do, and come with the same Federal Tort Claims Act liability coverage that our adult members do. Frankly, in general I think they're easier to train than adults. That said, I do have common sense and as a ground team leader there are certainly some times when I would not employ cadets or might leave them back. For example, if we're going to go check an area where we're very likely to find the search subject, I might have our cadets stay behind [supervised] while a couple of adults check the area. But generally, they work well and yes, we do use them."

He seemed satisfied enough with that answer, and we moved on with the conversation.

I suspect that there's probably some local issues at play here that has this cadet fired up.
Logged
The moment any commander or staff member considers themselves a gatekeeper, instead of a facilitator, they have failed at their job.
I can't fix all of CAP's problems, but I can lead from the bottom by building my squadron as a center of excellence to serve as an example of what every unit can be.
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,058
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #54 on: April 11, 2016, 04:47:34 PM »

I dont get it. You can become a Jr. Firefighter/EMT on a Fire Department, or a Jr. Deputy/ Police Explorer at 16, and respond to emergencies way more frequent than CAP, but no one questions that. Yet, we perform SAR and they put age restrictions on us. All these paper pushes should join a Ground Team every once in a while.

Ummm... CAP doesn't exist without what you call paper pushers. Also, there is usually a great deal of overlap within units, where those paper pushers are also the folks on ground teams and aircrews,

And, think about this - many of our senior members are no longer physically able to participate on ground teams. Yet they remain valuable members of the ES team through other roles.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,676

« Reply #55 on: April 11, 2016, 04:51:12 PM »

I suspect that there's probably some local issues at play here that has this cadet fired up.

Do we know he's a cadet?
Logged
Theodore
Recruit

Posts: 47

« Reply #56 on: April 11, 2016, 04:52:49 PM »

Yes, Senior Members are the backbone of C.A.P., but, Cadets, for the most part, and in the physical shape required to go on searches.
Logged
Spaceman3750
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,608

« Reply #57 on: April 11, 2016, 04:53:05 PM »

I suspect that there's probably some local issues at play here that has this cadet fired up.

Do we know he's a cadet?

You're right, I'm making an assumption.
Logged
The moment any commander or staff member considers themselves a gatekeeper, instead of a facilitator, they have failed at their job.
I can't fix all of CAP's problems, but I can lead from the bottom by building my squadron as a center of excellence to serve as an example of what every unit can be.
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,058
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #58 on: April 11, 2016, 05:16:05 PM »

Yes, Senior Members are the backbone of C.A.P., but, Cadets, for the most part, and in the physical shape required to go on searches.

Bad generalization. I could out PT half the cadets in my last cadet squadron, at 55.

Also, I suggest that you take a closer look at the dates on threads before posting. This one was dormant for almost two years, and had only two posts in the two years prior.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 939
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #59 on: April 11, 2016, 05:38:03 PM »

It's interesting, I recently defended the use of cadets in SAR to one of the local SAR teams once.

The line was "we trained with CAP once [forever ago] and they brought a bunch of kids with them".

My response was "Yes, sir. The reality of CAP is that we do use youth searchers in some of our operations. You should know that they train to the exact same standards that our adult members do, and come with the same Federal Tort Claims Act liability coverage that our adult members do. Frankly, in general I think they're easier to train than adults. That said, I do have common sense and as a ground team leader there are certainly some times when I would not employ cadets or might leave them back. For example, if we're going to go check an area where we're very likely to find the search subject, I might have our cadets stay behind [supervised] while a couple of adults check the area. But generally, they work well and yes, we do use them."

He seemed satisfied enough with that answer, and we moved on with the conversation.

I suspect that there's probably some local issues at play here that has this cadet fired up.

I think you're right. That usually seems the case, and... if he's a cadet?

V/R
Spam
Logged
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 939
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #60 on: April 11, 2016, 05:38:49 PM »

I dont get it. You can become a Jr. Firefighter/EMT on a Fire Department, or a Jr. Deputy/ Police Explorer at 16, and respond to emergencies way more frequent than CAP, but no one questions that. Yet, we perform SAR and they put age restrictions on us. All these paper pushes should join a Ground Team every once in a while.

Ummm... CAP doesn't exist without what you call paper pushers. Also, there is usually a great deal of overlap within units, where those paper pushers are also the folks on ground teams and aircrews,

And, think about this - many of our senior members are no longer physically able to participate on ground teams. Yet they remain valuable members of the ES team through other roles.

SarDragon, thank you so much for stating that. Well said.

V/R
Spam



Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,058
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #61 on: April 11, 2016, 05:40:38 PM »

I calls 'em like I sees 'em.  8)
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
stillamarine
400,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 802
Unit: SER-AL-134

« Reply #62 on: April 11, 2016, 05:47:02 PM »

As far as police explorers go they must ride with a qualified officer. There are national rules from Learning for Life that governs the type of calls they go on. They are not going to any hot in progress calls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
Tim Gardiner, 1st LT, CAP

USMC AD 1996-2001
USMCR    2001-2005  Admiral, Great State of Nebraska Navy  MS, MO, UDF
tim.gardiner@gmail.com
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,075
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #63 on: April 11, 2016, 11:06:09 PM »

Yes, Senior Members are the backbone of C.A.P., but, Cadets, for the most part, and in the physical shape required to go on searches.


Eh...debatable.


I'm about 50lbs heavier than I was as a cadet, but I can honestly say I'm in better endurance/strength shape than I was at 17. It's a sad statement, but there it is. You'd be surprised how much "life" muscle you put on after highschool.
Logged
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,676

« Reply #64 on: April 12, 2016, 07:26:03 AM »

He forgets that there must be at least one senior member in every ground team, who has to be in the necessary physical shape to do what the rest of the team has been task to do.

As it has been stated already, not all cadets are in great physical shape. In fact, I've seen senior members who can run circles around some cadets. I, myself, am not in the best of shapes, but can hold myself in a wilderness search environment, sometimes much better than the cadets assigned to my team.
Logged
Brit_in_CAP
Seasoned Member

Posts: 361
Unit: MER-VA-002

« Reply #65 on: April 12, 2016, 08:26:53 AM »

I dont get it. You can become a Jr. Firefighter/EMT on a Fire Department, or a Jr. Deputy/ Police Explorer at 16, and respond to emergencies way more frequent than CAP, but no one questions that. Yet, we perform SAR and they put age restrictions on us. All these paper pushes should join a Ground Team every once in a while.

Ummm... CAP doesn't exist without what you call paper pushers. Also, there is usually a great deal of overlap within units, where those paper pushers are also the folks on ground teams and aircrews,

And, think about this - many of our senior members are no longer physically able to participate on ground teams. Yet they remain valuable members of the ES team through other roles.

SarDragon, thank you so much for stating that. Well said.

V/R
Spam
+1, and well said....
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All] Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Emergency Services & Operations  |  Topic: Cadets In Es Letter
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.37 seconds with 20 queries.
click here to email me