Unit Continuity of Operations Plan

[Ranger75]

Hawkeye  --  In your post you mention "a ways to go."  In implementing this order process, I have come across resistance from those unfamiliar with the format, stating a preference for a more informal e-mail dissemination of information.  I would welcome constructive comment on how to adapt the format to a volunteer organization, one where a significant percentage of the membership lacks exposure to the format and terminology from prior military experience.  A reply or PM, as you deem appropriate, would be welcomed.  --  Jim

[ZigZag911]

Since this is likely to occur only in a disaster (natural or man made), wouldn't it make sense to establish, within CAP across the board, that once "command echelon" personnel are unavailable (commander, vice or deputy/deputies, chief of staff), command logically should devolve to ops officer, followed by ES officer.

Beyond that (and realize in most units you'll have run through 4 or 5 people by this point), the next recourse should be 'senior officer present for duty and otherwise eligible for command" (i.e., can't be a chaplain)

[Eclipse]

Since this is likely to occur only in a disaster (natural or man made), wouldn't it make sense to establish, within CAP across the board, that once "command echelon" personnel are unavailable (commander, vice or deputy/deputies, chief of staff), command logically should devolve to ops officer, followed by ES officer.

Beyond that (and realize in most units you'll have run through 4 or 5 people by this point), the next recourse should be 'senior officer present for duty and otherwise eligible for command" (i.e., can't be a chaplain)

Define "senior officer".

This devolves quickly into a fist fight between the 1st Lt recent military GBD and the 20-year Lt. Col. who doesn't do ES.

No continuity is required for the unit activities and ES has its own, seperate chain and command structure.

[Ricochet13]

No continuity is required for the unit activities and ES has its own, seperate chain and command structure.

As I see it, one of the problems of CAP.  Everyone seems to want to do their own thing.  In my unit I command.  There is not a "separate chain and command structure".  ES activities are part of unit activities.

[Eclipse]

As I see it, one of the problems of CAP.  Everyone seems to want to do their own thing.  In my unit I command.  There is not a "separate chain and command structure".  ES activities are part of unit activities.

This is a common misconception with unit CC's and one that causes plenty of arguments.

A unit CC has no special mojo regarding ES operations.  You may well be the "Person In Charge" of local training activities (i.e. setup the hots, cots, and bathrooms), but unless you, by coincidence, happen to be a branch director or higher, will have no authority over an ES operation even if its using your building, resources, and people.

When they are in the mission, they report to whomever they report to, not you.  This specific issue was cited as a problem during Katrina operations - members who didn't like the taskings and directions they were being given calling home to their Wing CC who in turn was trying to influence and direct operations remotely.  They were sent home.

In an ES capacity, a Wing CC may well take directives from a 1st Lt who is an IC. 

[mikeylikey]

As I see it, one of the problems of CAP.  Everyone seems to want to do their own thing.  In my unit I command.  There is not a "separate chain and command structure".  ES activities are part of unit activities.

This is a common misconception with unit CC's and one that causes plenty of arguments.

A unit CC has no special mojo regarding ES operations.  You may well be the "Person In Charge" of local training activities (i.e. setup the hots, cots, and bathrooms), but unless you, by coincidence, happen to be a branch director or higher, will have no authority over an ES operation even if its using your building, resources, and people.

When they are in the mission, they report to whomever they report to, not you.  This specific issue was cited as a problem during Katrina operations - members who didn't like the taskings and directions they were being given calling home to their Wing CC who in turn was trying to influence and direct operations remotely.  They were sent home.

In an ES capacity, a Wing CC may well take directives from a 1st Lt who is an IC. 

PAWG Rangers......but I digress.....

[Gunner C]

Hawkeye  --  In your post you mention "a ways to go."  In implementing this order process, I have come across resistance from those unfamiliar with the format, stating a preference for a more informal e-mail dissemination of information.  I would welcome constructive comment on how to adapt the format to a volunteer organization, one where a significant percentage of the membership lacks exposure to the format and terminology from prior military experience.  A reply or PM, as you deem appropriate, would be welcomed.  --  Jim

I'd be happy to.

Gunner

[Ricochet13]

I knew this would get responses! 

First off, we're not PAWG (reference to Hawk Mtn).  We are training all members of the squadron to "deploy" to a mission as a "resource" which has a more formally trained working relationship and depth of skills sets.

Second, why would CAP want to deploy as individuals when a trained cadre of personnel was available?  The squadron is ready to be tasked by the wing CC or anyone else for a mission and provide more than "one-sies and two-sies" to work a mission.  When we report to a mission we have both an understanding and expectation that members of the squadron are working for the IC, no matter what their rank.  We are "supporting" to "supported".

Third, I would agree there are "common misconceptions" as stated:  "This is a common misconception with unit CC's and one that causes plenty of arguments."  It causes plenty of arguments because staff doesn't always understand they don't command, they only carry out the direction (orders?) of the wing CC.  Just because "we've always done it this way" in CAP (and I'm not sure it has always been done this way) doesn't mean it's the best method.  The only person who does "command" at a mission is the IC.

Fourth, this is the process we've been operating on for almost 9 months now.  The squadron has successfully participated in 1 actual, 1 ELT, and three multi-squadron practice missions in that time.  The last one two days ago with a 75% participation rate.   The squadron will be deploying in support of the wing DC in three weeks for a mission being supported by communications.  Members of the squadron are involved, they're sensing a spirit of camaraderie, and certainly aren't feeling like "cash cows" paying dues so others get to play.

Finally, we're instilling a way of thinking that says "give us a mission", we'll carry it out.  Would never expect or even consider "calling home to Daddy" to get a more favorable mission assignment.  It's astonishing to think anyone would have done that, given the reference to Katrina!   

[mikeylikey]

First off, we're not PAWG (reference to Hawk Mtn).  We are training all members of the squadron to "deploy" to a mission as a "resource" which has a more formally trained working relationship and depth of skills sets.

You misunderstood my post, thats my fault. Sorry.  I was making reference to who "called home to Daddy" to get better assignments.  I was there when the calls came and went from PAWG Ranger teams to get better assignments.  It can all be read about in the After Actions published after Katrina.

Heck, PAWG couldn't even send properly uniformed members.......and we won't even get into what the Rangers "took home" from their deployment.  Cause taking 150 cases of MRE's to replace the 15 you took down is shameful not only to the Rangers but to every member of PAWG.   

[Gunner C]

Hawkeye  --  In your post you mention "a ways to go."  In implementing this order process, I have come across resistance from those unfamiliar with the format, stating a preference for a more informal e-mail dissemination of information.  I would welcome constructive comment on how to adapt the format to a volunteer organization, one where a significant percentage of the membership lacks exposure to the format and terminology from prior military experience.  A reply or PM, as you deem appropriate, would be welcomed.  --  Jim

I worked on the rewrite of the OPORD for about 4 hours today.  I'm about done but won't be able to work on it again until Friday.  I could see the direction that the A-5 was going, but things weren't always in the right place.  I haven't done too many of these lately, but I did lots of them while on active duty (I was an ops officer and SF has one of the best operations schools in the military so it was beaten into my poor little brain).

I think that with most of the changes I've made, I've made it easier to see the general direction of the order with the meat in annexes and appendices.  That's always a balancing act.  So when I'm finished, see what you think of it.  YMMV

GC

[Ricochet13]

First off, we're not PAWG (reference to Hawk Mtn).  We are training all members of the squadron to "deploy" to a mission as a "resource" which has a more formally trained working relationship and depth of skills sets.

You misunderstood my post, thats my fault. Sorry.  I was making reference to who "called home to Daddy" to get better assignments.  I was there when the calls came and went from PAWG Ranger teams to get better assignments.  It can all be read about in the After Actions published after Katrina.

No problem Mikey.  I looked back and made an over generalization myself.  I am convinced that the approach we've taken with the squadron is a positive one in terms of what can be considered two basic principles:  1) Accomplish your assigned mission, and 2) Take care of your people who are accomplishing your assigned mission.  In another 9 months time the new members who join and the retention of present members will indicate if our approach is valid. 

That having been said, I welcome constructive criticism.  It helps me enunciate the overall concept much better, and there have already been "discussions" with more established elements in the wing regarding this concept.  Don't get me wrong, everyone is trying hard no matter what their approach.  I am fortunate to have met many fine people in CAP, even if we don't always agree on how to proceed.

I might add, along the lines of the military "Five Paragraph Field Order" format being discussed here, this is exactly what we use, supplemented by FRAGORDERS as necessary.  I'm a little rusty at writing them, but it's all coming back to me.

[Ranger75]

Gunner  --  PM sent  --  Jim

[SAR-EMT1]

Interesting thread...

Two things
1) Request a PM of a CAP- OPORD/ OPPLAN format

2) Request PM of Katrina AAR detailing aforementioned belly-aching

Danke

[Ranger75]

--  There is no specific CAP order format.  Rather, units and individuals have adopted the five paragraph order format that serves as the standard among the U.S. armed forces.  In the chain above, you'll find where this format was utilized in the production on a wing-level operation plan and implementing operation order.  Also, I have attached an annotated operation order distributed to the group headquarters in Maryland Wing to serve as a template for a typical group SAREX.  Perhaps the best reference for those unfamiliar with the order development process is the U.S. Army's Field Manual 5-0, Army Planning and Orders Production.  The manual can be found on the web. 

--  The Katrina AAR can be found in the archives at http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/emergency_services/index.html

[ZigZag911]

In major mission situations -- large natural disasters, REDCAP, etc -- it is not uncommon to mobilize one or more squadrons to report with specific ES resources (personnel, vehicles, comm gear)

"Continuity of operations" in this instance would seem to refer to who takes charge of that squadron...who is the officer alerted, who issues intructions to staff and members.

When I said "senior officer present" I meant the ranking officer -- it is my firm conviction that all officers should complete GES as part of level 1, and that to hold major or above one should be briefed on what to do in the sort of situation we're discussing here....and should be ready and willing to do it (we're talking about activating assets, not leading a hazardous mission for Special Forces!)

[Eclipse]

I'd be curious as to where "units" are being deployed as a unit - that may have been the SOP BITD, but it certainly isn't anymore.

There is no such thing as "ranking officer" in CAP when you are talking about ES operations - the command chain is based on qualifications and ratings, not grade.

[Smithsonia]

In the military you tell your boss who should handle things if everything goes awry. If you're a commander in the field in Harms Way... Your boss is going to ask you for a list. Your boss is going to want to know why you think this person or tha person is next in line. In a certain way this is a test: Your character (jealous?) the unit operation/performance (has the unit been trained to know what to do when everybody goes down) and the bosses tribal or social knowledge (is there a commander that he didn't know about and wasn't being mentored but is a natural?)

Somebody, in an earlier message said it could get down to the Squadron Historian. Historians that were commanders include Winston Churchill. He wrote the History of the British (People or Empire) I can't remember which, right now. BUT, at least we historians got one good shot at it.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[ZigZag911]

Once personnel are instructed to report to a mission, the ICS chain of command.

In an ordinary ELT mission, SAREX/SAREVAL, IC or PSC will undoubtedly identify and mobilize desired personnel.

I thought, however, we are talking about a major catastrophe -- in this case, IC/designee is almost certainly going to activate categories of personnel ("get 6 MROs for day shift tomorrow, 2 aircrews, and at least 3 GTs to do house to house checks; also, round up as many shelter management trained people as we can find in to respond to ARC support request").

I guarantee you in a scenario like that PSC and planning team are going to start calling units, not person by person.