AF Tough Enough On CAP During SAR/DR Evaluations?

[RADIOMAN015]

In my short time in CAP, I've got to wonder if AF is being tough enough on CAP during annual operations inspections for SAR/DR support activities.

I've never seen/heard of ANY nightime SAR evaluations, yet there's a real possibility that we might be operating in the hours of darkness.

Comments?
RM

[Flying Pig]

Probably safety.  Yeah, I know we do missions at night, but I have to wonder if the Air Force really wants to throw that wrench in the spokes.  I guess they figure that if you can do it in the day, you should reasonably be able to do it at night.  Good question.  We have an evaluated SAREX this weekend with the Air Force in Bakersfield.  Ill ask.

[RiverAux]

I think they're generally adequate in all areas except ground SAR.  While the CAP-USAF have a decent comprehension of what we're doing in the air, they've really got no clue as to how to evaluate ground SAR and in my Wing rarely set up any sort of challenging scenario.  As long as the tire preassure in the vans isn't too low, you're probably going to pass.

[KyCAP]

After running the EVAL here in KY (GLR last year I do think the GLR CAP-USAF team is in tune with the Ground Team.   They set a target into a national park pretty well back up in it and very well hidden.   

[billford1]

I think they are reasonably observant. They watch the money and how well the IC is overseeing how well assets are being deployed and monitored from MB. I had an AF MSgt ask us why Commo didn't have the Comm Van out from MB where we could have better reach with use of a portable generator. It took me a little time to explain that MB Comm has an urgent need to have real time linkage with Air Ops and Ground Ops leaders at MB. Air Crews with unexpected events need to be able to get instructions from the Air Ops leader without delay. When I do the CUL thing I try to have a Comm person in the room where they can walk up to the individual and get him to where he can talk to the air crew quickly. I think the AF eval folks pay attention to that. They watch for how well everyone is playing well together. The concern for Ground Teams is probably to the extent that they are reporting at regular intervals and able to hook up with their assigned Air Crews. When they monitor the GT there is the matter of watching out for safety issues that they can make light of at the after action briefing.

[es_g0d]

We ARE the Air Force.

[notaNCO forever]

We ARE the Air Force.

Auxiliary

[PHall]

We ARE the Air Force.

Auxiliary

Sometimes

[Eclipse]

We ARE the Air Force.

Auxiliary

Sometimes

Nope, always.

The "big A, little A" discussion is an operational role discussion, but we're never not the USAF/Aux - if we were, then the days we're not we could literally do whatever we wanted.

But alas, this is a road well traveled. 

[Short Field]

Civilian Auxiliary. 

[sparks]

CAP-USAF uses their evaluation playbook to verify the points they are required to check. There is some liberty for interpretation and to make things more difficult but they usually are fair evaluations. Also, the evaluators can be given points to emphasize if there have been specific operations problems that need emphasis. It's true, if they wanted they could probably shut down any wing in CAP during an inspection but what point would there be in doing that? I have never seen night scenarios but they certainly could be done. I don't know why evaluations are day light only. Maybe it's a CAP-USAF policy.

[RiverAux]

Well, there are really only a limited number of things that they can evaluate at night.  Some ground ops, transport flights, and an ELT hunt.  Since most large-scale CAP mission bases don't really operate at night, testing us at night wouldn't be all that realistic. 

Also, since they would still have to evaluate daytime activities, doing something at night might increase travel costs (extra meals and lodging, etc.) in some cases. 

[cap235629]

Well at a recent SAR eval in Arkansas, they threw a wrench in things.  When the Ground Team arrived at it's assigned area, they were informed by the CAP/USAF team that they were killed in a terrorist attack.  Threw the IC staff for a while and the mission evolved.   Quite interesting

[RiverAux]

When the Ground Team arrived at it's assigned area, they were informed by the CAP/USAF team that they were killed in a terrorist attack. 

According to the National Legal Officer this couldn't have happened since we are a non-combat organization.     

[cap235629]

^evil thoughts

but we do make good targets!

[Eclipse]

When the Ground Team arrived at it's assigned area, they were informed by the CAP/USAF team that they were killed in a terrorist attack. 

According to the National Legal Officer this couldn't have happened since we are a non-combat organization.     

In all seriousness, I don't know what the point of that is - they are supposed to be evaluating the capabilities of the Wing, especially in regards to mission planning and resource use (most states don't have too many issues with the field players).  I've seen the CAP-USAF evaluators turn the screws pretty hard when they find a weak point in the mission base staff, especially if its the IC.  That's why preparation, checklists, and mitigating potential sources of chaos in advance are so important.

Having a team killed by terrorists would basically shut down the operations once the check-ins were missed and the situation was confirmed (however that happened) - the whole area becomes a crime scene, the FBI and other alphabet agencies would get involved immediately and tell us to sit quietly, assuming they even let us stay around.

Every cadet would be sent home immediately, the planes brought back or sent out of the area, and a lot of the seniors would be looking at the door as well, and they should be since we're not an anti-terrorist organization. Jack Baur is not a member.

[arajca]

Well, there are really only a limited number of things that they can evaluate at night.  Some ground ops, transport flights, and an ELT hunt.  Since most large-scale CAP mission bases don't really operate at night, testing us at night wouldn't be all that realistic. 

Since most CAP missions don't involve large scale bases and operations, it's not really realistic to use that scenario, but it's a minor detail.

[Eclipse]

Well, there are really only a limited number of things that they can evaluate at night.  Some ground ops, transport flights, and an ELT hunt.  Since most large-scale CAP mission bases don't really operate at night, testing us at night wouldn't be all that realistic. 

Since most CAP missions don't involve large scale bases and operations, it's not really realistic to use that scenario, but it's a minor detail.

Overnight ELT's don't, that's true, but thanks to mother nature an increasing number of larger, and inter-state missions has been our joy the past few years, and thanks to ICS we've been putting more and more emphasis on the planning portions of the mission after several years of concentrating on getting field assets ramped up.

[arajca]

Well, there are really only a limited number of things that they can evaluate at night.  Some ground ops, transport flights, and an ELT hunt.  Since most large-scale CAP mission bases don't really operate at night, testing us at night wouldn't be all that realistic. 

Since most CAP missions don't involve large scale bases and operations, it's not really realistic to use that scenario, but it's a minor detail.

Overnight ELT's don't, that's true, but thanks to mother nature an increasing number of larger, and inter-state missions has been our joy the past few years, and thanks to ICS we've been putting more and more emphasis on the planning portions of the mission after several years of concentrating on getting field assets ramped up.

Ya could'a fooled me...

[CAPSGT]

I actually haven't seen a whole lot of consistency in the Evals.  It all varies based on the eval team, which widely varies from Liaison Region to Liaison Region.  I've been on Evals where the team had no idea what they were looking at and it seemed like as long as you found the practice ELTs, you got an Outstanding.  Lately, we've had some evaluators who got a chip on their shoulder when you corrected them for doing something wrong and actually downgraded you for doing something good.

I've also noticed that with many of the mission staff positions, if the checklist said "do A" but you did B, but called it "A", the evaluators didn't know the difference.

I actually had the opportunity to serve on an EVAL team several years ago (they had 2 CAP members on each team that year).  The thing I found odd was that at the time, the majority of my ES experience was with Ground Team (to include GBD) & Flightline, yet I got tasked to evaluate FASC & CUL...two ratings I did not hold.