Time to Evaluate CAP- Purpose and Re-purpose

[Major Carrales]

Every so often I wonder about the "direction" that the Civil Air Patrol should go.  As we have seen, many people in CAP have different takes on the "focus" of the organization.  While I won't use the much negatively "agenda" word, it is refreshing to see what people think CAP should be doing on into the 2020s.

Now, remember, a mission can have multiple facets.  So, don't get into the "notch" that your "great idea" vision is mutually exclusive to someone else's.  We can have a multifaceted existence that is effective and efficient.

More than a wishlist, it is a gauging of what is possible for the future.  Looking forward to some good ideas.

[lordmonar]

No change in the Cadet Programs Focus......maybe a change with the program.

In the Emergency Services Program.  A maintain the current focus in Air SAR.  A change in the focus of the ground team in SAR.  Change the focus from "searching grids for target" to "air liaison teams"   Attaching our AL teams to other agency's Ground SAR teams to act a coordinator between CAP air Assets and the local Ground Assets.

Expand on the DR missions.
For Ground teams.....look at CERT, Shelter Management, Point of Distribution, Urban SAR, Sand Bagging etc.

AE.......Fly a Teacher needs to take a major front row in our external AE program.  Expand other ways to present AE to the outside.  National needs to pick a couple of key areas that they want us at the squadron level to focus on (air power as benefits to society, more GA airports, STEM, Pilots as a career, etc.)

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

Perhaps we should look at getting the teachers in the air before they join. I'm sure lots of lawyers would be involved but I think the cart might be before the horse on the current plan. They might get the flying "bug" and want to join as AEM or (gasp) a standard senior member.

I can't see Urban SAR getting past the lawyers.

I like the Air Liaison idea. I would see it as a qualification with GTM, MRO (and perhaps MS) as pre-reqs. You can be dispatched according to your GTM status depending on the mission of the team you're supporting. Does it need to be more than 1 person? Cadets?

[flyboy53]

Perhaps we should look at getting the teachers in the air before they join. I'm sure lots of lawyers would be involved but I think the cart might be before the horse on the current plan. They might get the flying "bug" and want to join as AEM or (gasp) a standard senior member.

I can't see Urban SAR getting past the lawyers.

I like the Air Liaison idea. I would see it as a qualification with GTM, MRO (and perhaps MS) as pre-reqs. You can be dispatched according to your GTM status depending on the mission of the team you're supporting. Does it need to be more than 1 person? Cadets?

Flying teachers before they become AEMs, although a novel idea, would be hung up with the insurance people. As it is now, a standard cadet orientation pilot can't fly AEMS unless they're commercially rated.

How about more in-residence type training like doing officer basic and things like level one in conjunction with an encampment or weekend type schools like TCL? The great thing about doing something as a weekend seminar or in conjunction with something like an encampment is the networking.

Why aren't CERT members automatically considered ground team members. In a disaster situation, those people have similar roles and do some things that are far more intensive then standard ground team members.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

Flying teachers before they become AEMs, although a novel idea, would be hung up with the insurance people. As it is now, a standard cadet orientation pilot can't fly AEMS unless they're commercially rated.

Sadly, you're likely correct. I would hope there is a way but...

Why aren't CERT members automatically considered ground team members. In a disaster situation, those people have similar roles and do some things that are far more intensive then standard ground team members.

From what I've read / heard CERT is not out in the woods stuff. We've utilized our GTM / UDF in interesting new ways but the core GT mission is out in the weeds.

[Major Carrales]

No change in the Cadet Programs Focus......maybe a change with the program.

I agree, the cadet program is a key part of CAP.  Would you like to elaborate on the changes in the program you speak about?  Would it be added or deleting anything in particular.

In the Emergency Services Program.  A maintain the current focus in Air SAR.  A change in the focus of the ground team in SAR.  Change the focus from "searching grids for target" to "air liaison teams"   Attaching our AL teams to other agency's Ground SAR teams to act a coordinator between CAP air Assets and the local Ground Assets.

What is your opinion of CAP shelter operations or other more "civil defense" oriented work (i.e. disaster relief, shelter operations and communications to support Emergency Management)  And, if so, how much should we incorporate at the unit level?  What is, in your view, too much and/or not enough?

AE.......Fly a Teacher needs to take a major front row in our external AE program.  Expand other ways to present AE to the outside.  National needs to pick a couple of key areas that they want us at the squadron level to focus on (air power as benefits to society, more GA airports, STEM, Pilots as a career, etc.)

It has been a long time indeed that people have been excited about air and space travel.

[RiverAux]

I've long advocated for more emphasis on ground SAR by CAP as well as development of a real disaster response doctrine for something other than aerial photography and related missions. 

[PHall]

I've long advocated for more emphasis on ground SAR by CAP as well as development of a real disaster response doctrine for something other than aerial photography and related missions.

Only problem is that we have to deal with 52 States/Districts/Territories/Commonwealths, and they all seem to have their own rules that we have to play by.

Yes, we need to have a core set of capabilities, but we need to be flexiable enough to work with the rules that govern the state we are in.

[RiverAux]

I've long advocated for more emphasis on ground SAR by CAP as well as development of a real disaster response doctrine for something other than aerial photography and related missions.

Only problem is that we have to deal with 52 States/Districts/Territories/Commonwealths, and they all seem to have their own rules that we have to play by.

Yes, we need to have a core set of capabilities, but we need to be flexiable enough to work with the rules that govern the state we are in.

Thats the situation with everything we do regarding ES and a fair amount of other activities. 

[SARDOC]

Flying teachers before they become AEMs, although a novel idea, would be hung up with the insurance people. As it is now, a standard cadet orientation pilot can't fly AEMS unless they're commercially rated.

Sadly, you're likely correct. I would hope there is a way but...

What we did was partner with our local AFA Chapter and they paid for the AEM membership for Teachers that wanted to participate in the Fly A Teacher program.   That worked well with both the AFA and CAP External AE program, and especially teachers who didn't want to pay for it.  After, we get them involved and they introduce AE topics into their classrooms we get them the CAP AEX award and the schools really like the recognition.  The Teacher who if the most effective gets awarded the AFA Chapter's Teacher of the Year and nominated for the State AFA Teacher of the Year (Real perks and Benefits associated with that)

[Eclipse]

0) Stop kidding ourselves and handing out awards for "showing up".

1) Lose AE as a separate "mission", it's not.

2) Decide what the sub components of our two real missions, CP & ES are, and who are customers are, and aren't.

3) Start recruiting people on a serious scale to get whatever #2 is done.

[RiverAux]

We could look at our official purposes once again:

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

A strict reading of those purposes would indicate that CAP has strayed from some of what we're really supposed to be doing.

Developing aviation and maintaining air supremacy -- Not sure how we're really doing either of these at all, but then again, this is incredibly vague so can't blame anyone for a failure in this area. 

Aviation education and training -- Pretty good for cadets, almost non-existent for seniors.  Though one could say that the cadet program has expanded radically beyond what was envisioned here.  For example, we're not tasked with youth leadership development or related tasks.  Heck, we could meet this purpose with a version of the Young Eagles program. 

Promoting civil aviation -- not doing at all.

Assisting in local and national emergencies -- doing pretty good in some areas, but too focused on responding using air assets even though we're not at all limited to them.

Assisting the Air Force in noncombat missions -- almost non-existent unless you want to count ES assistance to the AFRCC. 

[Eclipse]

Those are way too vague, perhaps intentionally, to be of much use.

None of the agencies we look like have the lack of straight-line mission that we do.

LEAs, FDs, EMAs, even the ARC and the military all have very specific reasons for existing and
specific parts of the Grande Scheme^® to play.  The know their lane and stay within it.

We spend most of our time bickering about where the freeway is, let alone which lane is ours,
and even if we knew, we aren't remotely manned at a level to be taken seriously at anything but
the last minute / brute force level.

[sarmed1]

In regards to ES- I agree with Patrick:  From what I have seen, even in wings that have done traditionally more GSAR than the rest of the program missions are down (both the classic missing/overdue/ELT aircraft type and missing person).  I have been looking at the Air Liaison concept for sometime now too; Not to hijack but add in FLS, I think that GTM1 would have to be the requirement (so you can be sure you match up with the skill set of the customer agency).  It could be a cadet qualification but would have to have the 18y/o age requirement and employment would be in a two person team.

There is a place for GSAR but I think the rest of the focus should be geared more towards disaster operations.  Rather than "USAR"  more of the damage/impact assessment mission for elements operating off the staging area proper.  Perhaps creating a Field Team Member (FTM) qual that covers/replaces GTM3  basically safety, prep and simple task qual, but includes all of the basics for operating in a disaster zone.  Then you can specialize after that, either DR or GT.

I have some thoughts on the cadet program as well, but they are somewhat jumbled.  May have to have more sleep or caffeine to make them work.  Thinking more military-esque for cadet program seniors... less for everyone else.  Longer and more varied career (military) orientation and internal summer activities (like Sea Cadets and US Army Cadet Corps)

Senior side again, I would like to see a more AF Aux (on) sort of relationship with the AF, much more like the Coast Guard Aux.  Really look at the reality of non-combat mission support roles and missions, where the fit really is and how to make it fit to the benefit of both organizations.

mk

[lordmonar]

Let me elaborate on the GSAR issues.

First numbers and equipment.  Realistily we can't be used on a lot of GSARs simply because we are not able to field usable numbers of members over the age of 18......and we are reluctant (i.e. we don't train) in loaning our assets to other agencies.   We are not big enough or competent enough to run a large GSAR on our own....and we don't like to let others come to play with us.   And so there is the head butting between us and various sheriff's departments.

CAP (in some areas) is heavily biased toward the air side of things....rightly so.....we are the Civil AIR Patrol.

So....let's embrace the de facto status quo.

ALO teams will be 3-5 members who are GTM1 qualified and maybe MS and MRO qualified.  Their jobs will be to be deployed and attached to who ever is running the GSAR as a comm go between our CAP assets and the GSAR Strike Force commander.

So.....we are not in  charge of the ground search, not doing the ground search.....but we can help because we are trained to do it....and we in theory talk the language of our pilots.

This still allows us to do our organic training and facilitates our working with other agencies.


On the CERT side of things.....how can the lawyers nix that?  It is less dangerous then wilderness SAR which we do now.

As for as the DR certs.   I see us more as a Pool of trained volunteers...as opposed to us actually setting up and managing the shelters and POD centers....or Sand Bag Dykes.  Very much a "get with the local ARC" to match up capabilities.

My ideas for the cadet programs is for another thread.....it will de-rail this one in two seconds. 

[Major Carrales]

I've long advocated for more emphasis on ground SAR by CAP as well as development of a real disaster response doctrine for something other than aerial photography and related missions.

River, I agree.  It would be excellent to have a true "first response" attitude.  The problem comes from our training doctrine.  Some units meet once a week others once a month, there will never truly be that level of training necessary to do that outside of a few people. 

[Major Carrales]

I've long advocated for more emphasis on ground SAR by CAP as well as development of a real disaster response doctrine for something other than aerial photography and related missions.

Only problem is that we have to deal with 52 States/Districts/Territories/Commonwealths, and they all seem to have their own rules that we have to play by.

Yes, we need to have a core set of capabilities, but we need to be flexiable enough to work with the rules that govern the state we are in.

One would think that the concept of having "Wings" with each a corporate officer able to make certain decisions would mitigate that.  Once size will never fit all.

[Major Carrales]

Flying teachers before they become AEMs, although a novel idea, would be hung up with the insurance people. As it is now, a standard cadet orientation pilot can't fly AEMS unless they're commercially rated.

Sadly, you're likely correct. I would hope there is a way but...

What we did was partner with our local AFA Chapter and they paid for the AEM membership for Teachers that wanted to participate in the Fly A Teacher program.   That worked well with both the AFA and CAP External AE program, and especially teachers who didn't want to pay for it.  After, we get them involved and they introduce AE topics into their classrooms we get them the CAP AEX award and the schools really like the recognition.  The Teacher who if the most effective gets awarded the AFA Chapter's Teacher of the Year and nominated for the State AFA Teacher of the Year (Real perks and Benefits associated with that)

Partnerships are key, much of the successes we have had in out unit comes from good working relationships.  Wing and National, however, could do more to cement these relationships on higher levels.   

[RiverAux]

I've long advocated for more emphasis on ground SAR by CAP as well as development of a real disaster response doctrine for something other than aerial photography and related missions.

River, I agree.  It would be excellent to have a true "first response" attitude.  The problem comes from our training doctrine.  Some units meet once a week others once a month, there will never truly be that level of training necessary to do that outside of a few people.

Uh, why?  We have a perfectly adequate GSAR training program now that doesn't take up an extraordinary amount of time.  As has often been pointed out, the only differences between CAP GSAR standards and NASAR standards relates to high angle rescue operations that CAP is not going to be involved in and are only rarely needed anyway.  So, training time is not a limiting factor. Heck, we manage to find time to keep several thousand pilots up to snuff and that is significantly more complicated than GSAR. 

And lets face facts, GSAR is not all that difficult in so far as training goes. 

Now, if you were referring to my comments about ground response to disaster situations, training time is going to be dependent on what we want to do in the first place, which CAP has never really addressed.  However, based on our equipment and general limitations, it is unlikely that we'd be taking on any new missions of great complexity requiring more training time than we have available. 

[lordmonar]

I've long advocated for more emphasis on ground SAR by CAP as well as development of a real disaster response doctrine for something other than aerial photography and related missions.

River, I agree.  It would be excellent to have a true "first response" attitude.  The problem comes from our training doctrine.  Some units meet once a week others once a month, there will never truly be that level of training necessary to do that outside of a few people.

Not if GSAR is all that you do.

There is a GSAR organization here in LV that only meets once a month....for the GSAR people.  It is that we are doing everything as well as GSAR.
And that requires larger organizations....which we just don't have.  Average Senior member per squadron is only 21 +/-........can't really put together a good GSAR program while also doing Air SAR, cadets operations and AE.

We are currently going through a major refocusing/reorganization of my squadron.   We decided that what we wanted to do was to be able to field a full mission capability.....be able to do one aircraft and two ground teams for a 12 hour period....and we came up that we need about 40 people just to do the ES mission.....we also decided that we want to support 100 cadets in the CP program.......we ran the numbers and it looks like it would take about 80 people just support 100 cadets and a 40 person ES team.

Run those numbers.....a squadron that did it all would have to be 200+ people strong.

That's the two year goal that we are shooting for right now.

[Spaceman3750]

I like the AL idea as long as it doesn't replace our existing ground team structure. I rather like being an actual searcher and not a glorified radio operator. That would be a guaranteed way to push me out of CAP.

[SAREXinNY]

River,

I have to disagree with you on the point that GSAR doesn't take up an "extraordinary amount of time".  Getting signed off on SQTRs has been a major headache in my area...with very limited opportunities.  I took me a year to earn GTM3, attending SAR exercises regularly.  I'd be willing to put in the time to get certified/qualified if I could actually get the sign offs needed.

[Major Carrales]

0) Stop kidding ourselves and handing out awards for "showing up".

You mean the "membership award?"  I don't see harm in it.  The National Defense Service Ribbon is an award given for serving one's nation, some would say that is a "duh" moment.  Why not give an award like that in CAP?   Still, some degree of rigor is necessary.

1) Lose AE as a separate "mission", it's not.

I disagree, we should be focusing on Aerospace topics.  What has happened is that we have lost sight of that.  We should have a real partnership with NASA and Aerospace industries.  We should be giving seminars at Education Service Centers and have curriculum for science classes.

2) Decide what the sub components of our two real missions, CP & ES are, and who are customers are, and aren't.

Yes, our missions need constant analysis so we can synthesize real world solution that work down to the unit levels.  Much more effort should go to this than should go to uniform item analysis and ancillaries of the Senior Program.

3) Start recruiting people on a serious scale to get whatever #2 is done.

Recruiting has been the hardest thing to handle as a commander.  The people just aren't interested and, unless CAP has more of a cool factor or there is a 9-11 type emergency, we need to focus on those that DO join and build them into CAP officers and cadets that are not isolated.  So, a "flying unit" needs to have a place for the "volunteer" that is not a pilot yet wants to serve and the cadet unit needs to address the ES needs of seniors of which there is no alternative en re squadrons.

[Major Carrales]

I've long advocated for more emphasis on ground SAR by CAP as well as development of a real disaster response doctrine for something other than aerial photography and related missions.

River, I agree.  It would be excellent to have a true "first response" attitude.  The problem comes from our training doctrine.  Some units meet once a week others once a month, there will never truly be that level of training necessary to do that outside of a few people.

Uh, why?  We have a perfectly adequate GSAR training program now that doesn't take up an extraordinary amount of time.  As has often been pointed out, the only differences between CAP GSAR standards and NASAR standards relates to high angle rescue operations that CAP is not going to be involved in and are only rarely needed anyway.  So, training time is not a limiting factor. Heck, we manage to find time to keep several thousand pilots up to snuff and that is significantly more complicated than GSAR. 

And lets face facts, GSAR is not all that difficult in so far as training goes. 

Now, if you were referring to my comments about ground response to disaster situations, training time is going to be dependent on what we want to do in the first place, which CAP has never really addressed.  However, based on our equipment and general limitations, it is unlikely that we'd be taking on any new missions of great complexity requiring more training time than we have available.

I am referring more to your second post, however, there is something to be said about more rigor in training.  There still are times when we see people showing up to REDCAPs somewhat lost.  I asked one of these fellows about that and it was indicated that their unit only met once a month and he had not been trained in COMM to a level with would allow him to use the radio without it first being "Set up" for him.  Maybe I mean to focus more on "drilling" there skills and on going training instead of some places that say, you have "ICUT" good...you are an EXPERT!

[lordmonar]

I like the AL idea as long as it doesn't replace our existing ground team structure. I rather like being an actual searcher and not a glorified radio operator. That would be a guaranteed way to push me out of CAP.

If you are someplace where they local sheriff and CAP actually lets you search. 

[Major Carrales]

River,

I have to disagree with you on the point that GSAR doesn't take up an "extraordinary amount of time".  Getting signed off on SQTRs has been a major headache in my area...with very limited opportunities.  I took me a year to earn GTM3, attending SAR exercises regularly.  I'd be willing to put in the time to get certified/qualified if I could actually get the sign offs needed.

This was my point.  There needs to be "on going" opportunities for training.  Monthly DSARS mean that it takes a person two months to sign off on basics.  If out meetings are not focused on support of that training, then there is and efficient gap.  River, I think that the issue is solvable by providing training opportunities at the squadron level...it could be does with distance learning.

[Eclipse]

As to the awards, I am referring to just about everything internally - most of the "of the whatever" awards, Outstanding inspection scores for
checking the boxes, etc., etc.  It just perpetuates we're doing great when we're just barely functional.  We also need to stop rewarding brute force success
as if it was something we could replicate or scale. Most of our major operations in the last decade - the high visibility ones - 
were one-offs that were as much about the specific people involved as any systematic capabilities, yet we continue to
sell them, both internally and externally as if they were a routine occurrence.  It's one thing if you want to add it to the
brochure, but kidding ourselves internally just perpetuates the problems.

The majority of AE is already accomplished within the CP and ES.  I'm not advocating eliminating the activities and functions,
just folding them in and concentrating on our two real missions.  There's no "external AE mission", we don't have the manpower
or the street cred.  Most wings are just punching that ticket as a CI item as well.

We need to eliminate "flying units", "senior units", and anything else that tries to pretend we're manned in a way that
supports those ideas and start hammering the local communities with recruiting.  I have no idea what you've done in your
area, and I understand you have some unique challenges, but by far the majority of the recruiting efforts I've seen
have been 1/2-butted attempts with no follow-on support and nothing from NHQ. 

We need a marketing campaign that starts getting people to ask "Who's CAP?" and follows it up with good answers.
The problem is that if we don't have a comprehensive idea what to do with the new folks, we'll just squander the
initiative like we did after 9/11.  Having folks show up to their first meeting and finding 2 guys sitting around with
3 cadets and not a clue between them isn't going to do us any good.

[lordmonar]

Still putting the cart before the horse.

We need to evaluate our ES, CP and AE needs first.

Then you can dole out these responsibilities to individual units who recruit to meet those needs.

Every commander has the one job......man, train and equip their units to meet assigned missions.

Without specific mission goals (x number of cadets, x number of AE presentations, X number of ES personnel) then we are in the boat that we are in right now.

[Eclipse]

Without specific mission goals (x number of cadets, x number of AE presentations, X number of ES personnel) then we are in the boat that we are in right now.

YES!  YES! YES!

[SunDog]

Meaningful training is so tough to sustain. I don't see us surging up big numbers, not when we can't get GTM or MOs trained, for example. I mean, we do train them, but not to a consistent level of performance. Folks are willing, of course, but the logistics aren't there.

Most real air missions in my wing go out with two MPs, no MO. We have MOs, and a few are expert, but most get thier two sorties and a sign off. Some cadets have more time in our aicraft than qualified MOs do.

What we can do is surge up airplnes, for a very low price. And if we can provide "Ground FACs" as I think Lordmanor described earlier, we could have a niche in state EMS.

Not sure what we do with AE, if anything. Aviation is established, and there are better, professional advocates for GA now.

Maybe we get smaller, with fewer aircraft, higher bar for pilots, and focus on "close air" for DR? Cadet Programs, I have no idea. Any metrics to show CP impact nets positive?  If yes, then let's move the focus there, do a few things really well, instead of a lot of things not so well?

[Major Carrales]

All CAP is somewhat divided.  The nearest units to mine are almost 2 hours away.  Units are in isolation.   There is no easy way to address that.  If he had Group, Wing or even CAP/USAF personnel to make unit visits to establish some sort of consistency it would be as much a financial issue as logistical one. 

The squadron meeting...effective squadron meeting might be a place to start.

[Eclipse]

The squadron meeting...effective squadron meeting might be a place to start.

This it where it starts >and< ends.

[lordmonar]

The squadron meeting...effective squadron meeting might be a place to start.

This it where it starts >and< ends.

No....sorry that's not true.

It starts at Wing.....with the OPLAN and taskings to the squadron level.

The squadron is where the work gets done.  Taskings flow down.

[Eclipse]

Fair enough.

[a2capt]

It starts at Wing.....with the OPLAN and taskings to the squadron level.

..and when you have GoB networks and cronyism at the higher levels, you run into issues where this does not happen and people at the lower echelons burn out and bail. When command is notified of it, and instead of investigating or acting, they blow it off because it's "their buddy in charge who would -never- do anything like that. Ever."

[blackrain]

As I sit here wrapping up my all-expense paid vacation courtesy of Uncle Sugar I admit to being a little lacking in my SA of the CAP goings on stateside so bear with me. What I see is a need to update the technical capabilities of our aircraft with something better for remote sensing/imagery and SAR than the Mark 1 eyeball. So far the best we could muster on my last CAP mission was a hand held camera for imagery. Yes it was a success but I see room for improvement. Last I heard was the Advanced Technology bubbas were looking hard at options for doing that but I don't know how far along they are or if what they decided will be funded. I do like the idea of providing liaison with different agencies but imagine the possibilities if our CAP personnel had access to real time high quality imagery through a ground station.  Granted these systems can cost as much as the aircraft themselves but I see that as our key to continued relevance. My .02

[Alaric]

The squadron meeting...effective squadron meeting might be a place to start.

This it where it starts >and< ends.

No....sorry that's not true.

It starts at Wing.....with the OPLAN and taskings to the squadron level.

The squadron is where the work gets done.  Taskings flow down.

It would be nice if that's the way it worked in my Wing, I've been here a little over a year now, and I have yet to see an OPLAN for any SAREX that the wing runs, as you can imagine, the SAREX's tend to be a little chaotic, people come without knowing if they have a role, SETs aren't available for trainees and so on.  We have a new Wing Commander so hopefully we will see some changes.

[BillB]

I believe everyone accepts that the Squadron is the basic level of CAP where the work gets done. Many years ago, HQ CAP-USAF looked at this and questioned the need for the titles, Senior Squadron, Cadet Squadron and Composite Squadron. They found that almost every so called Cadet Squadron was actually a Composite Squadron. An idea floated around to rename the Composite Squadrons as Training Squadrons. Senior Squadrons would become Search and Rescue Squadrons or similar name. The idea was to better identify the CAP unit in the public perception of CAP. I served on a Region level Committee that studied such changes and it was recommended to the National Board which never took up the changes.
Changes such as that would require National to come up with a training program that would allow the smallest Squadrons to be able to train, often without SAREX's etc so that check marks could be made on a 101. Few changes would have been required for the Cadet Program Training Squadrons, most all changes would be in the Senior Program.
I believe the main reason that such changes were not further investigated was the costs of new letterhead and forms (this was prior to computer generated graphics) that would fall on a Squadron. But such a change would better identify the role and missions of a Squadron to the public and might even help in recruiting.

[RiverAux]

I think that existing issues regarding getting GSAR training done today go back to the fact that it isn't a CAP priority at any level. 

Regarding distance learning -- there is a significant amount of the ground team curriculum that is nothing more than recitation of knowledge which could easily be done through online learning.  I still am amazed that CAP makes so little use of this technology when there are major portions of the SQTRs for many, many specialties that could be done this way. 

[Eclipse]

The only thing preventing the smallest squadrons from training is the smallest squadrons.

We also need to move away from this idea that "training" and "qualification" are the same thing or linked inexplicably,
or that SARExs are required to get qualified.

[lordmonar]

The only thing preventing the smallest squadrons from training is the smallest squadrons.

We also need to move away from this idea that "training" and "qualification" are the same thing or linked inexplicably,
or that SARExs are required to get qualified.

Then they need to drop the two missions requirement from the SQTRs.

[stillamarine]

You can get a training mission number for a squadron size sarex. It doesn't have to be a wing sarex.

[Eclipse]

Then they need to drop the two missions requirement from the SQTRs.

You can get a training mission number for a squadron size sarex. It doesn't have to be a wing sarex.

Also, every wing has monthly A&B mission numbers that you can run sorties against with no notice
or prior coordination.  These can be used for your 2 missions as well.

Creativity will trump excuses any time there's initiative.

[lordmonar]

Then they need to drop the two missions requirement from the SQTRs.

You can get a training mission number for a squadron size sarex. It doesn't have to be a wing sarex.

Also, every wing has monthly A&B mission numbers that you can run sorties against with no notice
or prior coordination.  These can be used for your 2 missions as well.

Creativity will trump excuses any time there's initiative.

I'm with you....use both those things all the time.
But as written.....it is "supposed" to be a real or training "mission" not just training with a mission number.

Personally....like I said before....we just need to drop the two missions requirement. 
For some ratings we should keep the "check ride" requirement and add them to other ratings.

[JeffDG]

But as written.....it is "supposed" to be a real or training "mission" not just training with a mission number.

Says who?  The regulation even puts quotes around the word "mission"

CAPR 60-3, 2-3c

These two "missions" do not have to be on different mission numbers, be AFAMs, or be
completed after all other advanced training is complete, but personnel must have completed all
familiarization and preparatory training in order to receive credit for these sorties.

[lordmonar]

But as written.....it is "supposed" to be a real or training "mission" not just training with a mission number.

Says who?  The regulation even puts quotes around the word "mission"

CAPR 60-3, 2-3c

These two "missions" do not have to be on different mission numbers, be AFAMs, or be
completed after all other advanced training is complete, but personnel must have completed all
familiarization and preparatory training in order to receive credit for these sorties.

So....I go back to my original statement.     They just need to drop the requirement for any "missions" and replace it with a "check ride".

[Eclipse]

But as written.....it is "supposed" to be a real or training "mission" not just training with a mission number.

Um, tne Wing's monthly A&B >are< training missions.  They aren't supposed to be an excuse for burning USAF gas.
There are approved profiles to use, and there's no reason they can't be used as the qualifiers. 

Not the "best practice", but better then nothing.

I disagree on the removal of the missions - even in the A&B you have to do the full paperwork, etc., so
better then nothing.

Also as stated, a unit can gin up a mission whenever they want, and nothing says the IC has to be physically present.

[Private Investigator]

Why aren't CERT members automatically considered ground team members. In a disaster situation, those people have similar roles and do some things that are far more intensive then standard ground team members.

That is a good point. I am CERT qualified and people think it is urban, i.e. 135th Street in Harlem but I know how to safely lift a wall off somebody on First and Main in Petticoat Junction. After tornadoes we always see pictures of Cadets walking thru cities, towns or villages that has been totalled.   

[Private Investigator]

You can get a training mission number for a squadron size sarex. It doesn't have to be a wing sarex.

Exactly   :clap:

[Major Carrales]

The only thing preventing the smallest squadrons from training is the smallest squadrons.

We also need to move away from this idea that "training" and "qualification" are the same thing or linked inexplicably,
or that SARExs are required to get qualified.

Small squadron often have the people to train, but the opportunities are either 1) on the other side of the state, 2) in the big cities or 3) not validated.  By the last point of that I mean that many small squadrons do actually do rigorous training at the squadron level in COMMS and ICS; however, this training does not really "count" for more than proficiency.  I actually agree with the proficiency part, however it would be nice if it counted. We have the technology for distance learning using everything from video conferencing and simulated SAR to chat rooms.  If Wing, Region or National provided some sort of classes, with on line tests to access the learning, we could spend SARex's actually getting true hands on training instead of having to check off things that could be done on meeting night.   

The sorties need to be focused on application of the task not basic knowledge level activities.   

[Eclipse]

Why >aren't< they getting done on a meeting night?  Is ES a part of your 13-week cycle
as more then a ticket punch?  People will do what the CC decides is important.

Once your people are ready, bring the SETs to you.

One decent SET can sign off a whole bunch of >prepared< members rather quickly,
especially in the fam/prep stuff.  The problem is that members aren't prepared, so SETs
show up, watch people bumble around, and won't bother to waste their time the next time
they are called.

The compass course takes 45 minutes?  Pipeline 10 people at a time with different targets,
etc., etc.  All easier said then done, I'll grant that, but if you aren't making the calls and asking
for help, then no one will even know you are interested.

I agree, SAREx's should not be "learn-me" activities, they should be opportunities to show what
you know, and use those baseline skills in a larger context.

[Walkman]

In Wing Conference 2012, I was in a session about squadron-level ES training. One CC brought up that she had lots of people ready & willing to get ES ratings, but currently in the unit was qualified to teach and eval/sign-off tasks. It was mentioned that she should look at neighboring units to see if they could team up, and she responded that the nearest other units were hours in any direction from her. Pretty common story, right?

And then (this was the cool part), two of our Wing ES staffers who were sitting in the corner got up, walked over to her and handed out their cards saying "Both of us will come out to visit your unit any time to help train your people. Seriously. Call us". I never heard the follow up story, but knowing these two. I'm sure they made good on their word.

Once your people are ready, bring the SETs to you.

One decent SET can sign off a whole bunch of >prepared< members rather quickly,
especially in the fam/prep stuff.  The problem is that members aren't prepared, so SETs
show up, watch people bumble around, and won't bother to waste their time the next time
they are called.

Totally agree. One doesn't have to be a fully CAP qualified SET to TEACH a topic, only to evaluate and sign-off. There are a number of basic tasks on GTM3/UDF that an EMT, local LEO/FF, or RM types could competently teach.

In that same vein, I routine ask for newly qualified ES people to teach and train the next group coming in. I've found that teaching something to someone else reinforces and strengthens one's own abilities in that task.

On the original question: I think some serious steroids could be pumped into our ES program. Despite the goobers and units that are 3 hours from anything and all the negatives we've all hashed out here a dozen times, I feel like we have enormous untapped potential in this area. I have no clue how to implement this grand potential, but I really feel its there.

[Eclipse]

I've said for years that the jumpstart into this is to start doing whatever we can today, as hard, fast, and often
as possible.  The momentum will build itself, we just have to get off the couch and make some calls.

Even the most simple, baseline jobs will get us press and recruits, not to mention callbacks.

[Lord of the North]

I've long advocated for more emphasis on ground SAR by CAP as well as development of a real disaster response doctrine for something other than aerial photography and related missions.

Only problem is that we have to deal with 52 States/Districts/Territories/Commonwealths, and they all seem to have their own rules that we have to play by.

Yes, we need to have a core set of capabilities, but we need to be flexiable enough to work with the rules that govern the state we are in.

One would think that the concept of having "Wings" with each a corporate officer able to make certain decisions would mitigate that.  Once size will never fit all.

Unfortunately, there are now NO corporate officers at CAP Wing or Region Level.  So much for that thought.

[Private Investigator]

In Wing Conference 2012, I was in a session about squadron-level ES training. One CC brought up that she had lots of people ready & willing to get ES ratings, but currently in the unit was qualified to teach and eval/sign-off tasks. It was mentioned that she should look at neighboring units to see if they could team up, and she responded that the nearest other units were hours in any direction from her. Pretty common story, right?

And then (this was the cool part), two of our Wing ES staffers who were sitting in the corner got up, walked over to her and handed out their cards saying "Both of us will come out to visit your unit any time to help train your people. Seriously. Call us". I never heard the follow up story, but knowing these two. I'm sure they made good on their word.

My POV as a Wing Staffer and formerly as a CC who ask for help in the past. It is really 50/50. Some Wing ES types always promise but never deliever and some are really good at their word, YMMV is what I am saying.

Another point is reality. If your Squadron does not have a plane and the nearest plane is an hour away. You should focus on GT, UDF and base staff and not MO and MS. 

[Spaceman3750]

In Wing Conference 2012, I was in a session about squadron-level ES training. One CC brought up that she had lots of people ready & willing to get ES ratings, but currently in the unit was qualified to teach and eval/sign-off tasks. It was mentioned that she should look at neighboring units to see if they could team up, and she responded that the nearest other units were hours in any direction from her. Pretty common story, right?

And then (this was the cool part), two of our Wing ES staffers who were sitting in the corner got up, walked over to her and handed out their cards saying "Both of us will come out to visit your unit any time to help train your people. Seriously. Call us". I never heard the follow up story, but knowing these two. I'm sure they made good on their word.

I do the same thing as a group ESO, and have even put together a small-scale GT-exercise for a squadron in a neighboring group who needed help, but nothing irritates me more than driving 2 hours to task 4 members and finding out they can't even tell me 3 signs of heat exhaustion when I show up.

I have no trouble driving long distances, it's a reality of my state, but I do expect you to study before I get there, whether we're just doing fam/prep or we're doing a field exercise.

[Eclipse]

Unfortunately, there are now NO corporate officers at CAP Wing or Region Level. 

While technically true under the new governance, the Wing and Region CC's have been delegated purchase and command authority
over their respective AORs and continue to function in essentially the same way as they always have.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

Another point is reality. If your Squadron does not have a plane and the nearest plane is an hour away. You should focus on GT, UDF and base staff and not MO and MS. 

Except that to progress beyond GBD you need MS.

[Alaric]

Another point is reality. If your Squadron does not have a plane and the nearest plane is an hour away. You should focus on GT, UDF and base staff and not MO and MS. 

Except that to progress beyond GBD you need MS.

And, at least in my experience with some wings the Good Ol'boy network lives at mission base.  Doing much above MSA can sometimes be difficult if your not part of the network.  I'm been fortunate in my last couple of wings.

[JeffDG]

Another point is reality. If your Squadron does not have a plane and the nearest plane is an hour away. You should focus on GT, UDF and base staff and not MO and MS. 

Except that to progress beyond GBD you need MS.

And, at least in my experience with some wings the Good Ol'boy network lives at mission base.  Doing much above MSA can sometimes be difficult if your not part of the network.  I'm been fortunate in my last couple of wings.

Good lord...why would that be a GOB issue (not doubting you, just thinking that those doing that are nuts!)

Staff work is what you do so that folks can do the fun stuff (aircrew, ground teams) in the hopes that someone else will step up and do the staff stuff once in a while so you can go play in the field.  If someone seriously wants to horde the staff jobs, that's more fun time for me!

[Eclipse]

Staff work is what you do so that folks can do the fun stuff (aircrew, ground teams) in the hopes that someone else will step up and do the staff stuff once in a while so you can go play in the field.  If someone seriously wants to horde the staff jobs, that's more fun time for me!

I would agree, but that's not how a lot of guys, especially the older ones, see it.  This is their turf, and they don't want to lose it.  The field might
not be an option any more, and well, that "know it all Linda took my job as condo association president, so this is all I have..."

Then there's the flip side that an effective ICS team, especially in CAP, can get pretty "closed"  because all it takes is one goober to throw a wrench
in the entire day (Goober doesn't equal "new", it equals "goober").  Being a BD or higher can be stressful enough without having to deal with "personalities"
as well, which is why it can seem like the ICP is a closed circle.

I'm not saying this is "right", but when you consider this is supposed to be "fun", the last thing I want to do is spend a weekend fighting over
where the whiteboards go.