Time to Evaluate CAP- Purpose and Re-purpose

[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.