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.