Hawk Mountain for Senior Members

[chaser430]

Hello, I am fairly new to CAP, just getting my 2LT and I am going to be going to a set of SARex's in Sept and October to become certified as GTM. I am also the ES Officer and Medical Officer for my Squadron.

My question is this- How is Hawk mountain for Senior Members physically? What type of physicality is required of a senior member. I'm not a kid anymore, I'm almost 32 but in reasonably good shape.

I know Hawk Mountain is not a popular topic on here, I would just like some honest opinions and testimonies of those who went to see if its worth paying the 350.00 for?
I really want to do the Medic portion of it but I believe I can't do that till I am at least a Ranger 3rd class if I was reading it correctly.
Again I know not everyone likes Hawk Mountain but I would appreciate a little guidance and suggestions from you all- thanks 

[dwb]

I have only attended the winter school, which is a weekend and thus not all that hard.

The mountain is difficult terrain for anyone (it is mountainous, after all). If you're in reasonably good shape it will be tiring, but you'll be able to manage.

For ES quals, you should consider NESA instead of Hawk. My Hawk knowledge is very out of date, but there used to be a lot of focus on things you probably won't do very often on actual CAP ES missions.

[Eclipse]

For ES quals, you should consider NESA instead of Hawk. My Hawk knowledge is very out of date, but there used to be a lot of focus on things you probably won't do very often on actual CAP ES missions.

+1

[sarmed1]

www.capranger.org

Re: the physical stuff
On the web site you will find under downloads->Standards and Evaluation-> it will list the specific Ranger  testing sheets for each grade, each section has an area for physical fitness standards.  As far as during the school the senior squadron participates in morning PT just like every other squadron, though not as rigorously.  Otherwise as mentioned above, it is not flat and level terrain on most of the training area including all but maybe the parade field.

As you can see by looking at the sheets, all of the matching GTM skills are also required.  Usually completion of GTM 3 and GTM 2 is what is covered training wise and tested (though you need to show up with GES, ICUT, ICS and CAPF 117 1-3 completed to receive any GTM qualification)  If you are going in as an already qualified GTM 2 or 1 I would consider looking at Team Commanders course.

The medic course requires you to be an R2.  The basic medic course is usually geared toward cadets or senior with no prior medical training; the Emergency Medical Responder level with wilderness and CAP/SAR considerations added in.  (If you want some more details that one would be best by PM)

MK

[chaser430]

Thank you MK
I did read the qualifications on the hawk Mtn website but it was really geared towards Cadets so I didnt know of there was a difference for Senior Members like they do in the military with age.

[sarmed1]

Thank you MK
I did read the qualifications on the hawk Mtn website but it was really geared towards Cadets so I didnt know of there was a difference for Senior Members like they do in the military with age.

The PT standard is under revision, I saw a copy of it over the summer.  If I remember correctly, it goes to a composite score and there are score adjustments for age and sex.

MK

[Spam]

Thank you MK
I did read the qualifications on the hawk Mtn website but it was really geared towards Cadets so I didnt know of there was a difference for Senior Members like they do in the military with age.

The PT standard is under revision, I saw a copy of it over the summer.  If I remember correctly, it goes to a composite score and there are score adjustments for age and sex.

MK

That sounds interesting, from the standpoint that the tasks don't change any more than Army Ranger tasks (shouldn't).

Does Hawk then do some sort of Resource Typing to classify and sort teams by physical ability and stamina?

In other words, does PAWG use some sort of differential physical scalar to sort GT search assets in advance to task high POAs (and difficult to search areas) with young, fit teams that can actually cover the terrain and lift and carry a significant body weight if need be?


V/R
Spam

[chaser430]

Thanks sarmed1- That's exactly what I was thinking it would be because even when I was in the Navy, we had different PT standards for age and sex.
I actually contacted the Major who is in charge of the Hawk Mtn FB site and she is supposed to call me tonight which is great so I can get info right from the source.

[sarmed1]

Thank you MK
I did read the qualifications on the hawk Mtn website but it was really geared towards Cadets so I didnt know of there was a difference for Senior Members like they do in the military with age.

The PT standard is under revision, I saw a copy of it over the summer.  If I remember correctly, it goes to a composite score and there are score adjustments for age and sex.

MK

Short answer is, no.


mk


That sounds interesting, from the standpoint that the tasks don't change any more than Army Ranger tasks (shouldn't).

Does Hawk then do some sort of Resource Typing to classify and sort teams by physical ability and stamina?

In other words, does PAWG use some sort of differential physical scalar to sort GT search assets in advance to task high POAs (and difficult to search areas) with young, fit teams that can actually cover the terrain and lift and carry a significant body weight if need be?


V/R
Spam

[RazorbackPride]

If a qualified team can't do the mission safely, should we be doing it in the first place?

[Spam]

Mark, thanks much.  All, to be clear: I'm not taking shots at HMRS, nor at individual team members who might be the "slowest common denominator", as I heard a good SNCO infer, once upon a mountainside.


What I'm interested in is if they, or anyone actually in CAP, are actually formally applying NIMS resource typing to team characterization and employment, and on a lower order, team member assignments to the teams, all on a physical fitness basis.  If so, I think that would be the first time I've seen it in CAP.


As a former IC/MC, and as a current GBD, I've informally done this, as I suspect many of you have as well, over the years. You have several teams show up, and even visually, you can resource type to a certain extent based on their evident gear. On a bit of interviewing and records checking, and following some probing and frank (but not judgmental) questions as to physical fitness, experience levels, and how "rusty" they may be, you can assign tasks safely (or not). This is analogous to having four aircrews on a rainy/foggy first mission day morning, and sorting them by their instrument currency and experience for a more difficult first tasking. Its shouldn't be meant or taken as personal: its a job assignment with safety implications, both for the team, the member, and the victim. Everyone has a part to play to help, but not everyone is suited for everything (and as we get older, our skill sets change we lose some physical abilities and gain other skills).


Anyways, I was fixin' to be impressed. I'll hold out hope that we're thinking about this.  This past spring, Garibaldi and I did a multi agency SAREX with a state defense force which, at first, appeared equally as full of fat, out of shape guys in uniform as CAP ever is. Then, after our joint team departed on an easy sortie, I met the "real deal" team, performing their annual task training requals just as we do, in the woods behind the TOC. Turns out this smaller group all had to pass a timed loaded ruck march, plus other fitness tests, to retain their SAR/DR team quals.  "We Grokked"... and it may turn out to be the start of a cooperative training approach, but it sure corrected my first impression.


V/R
Spam

[Eclipse]

Most of what you are describing is accommodated in ORM.  My wing has a standard form, developed in cooperation with others
from the Region, and age and experience are factors on ORM.

With that said, the quickest way to kill what little is left of CAP's Ground capability is to start pressing fitness or making "special"
teams that wind up getting all the work.  I can't speak to the commitments or response requirements of any organization, especially an SDF,
but in CAP's "you're luck I showed up at all" world, as soon as there is a wiff of "special", those other teams are going to
tell you to go an scratch, and then when your "specials" decide to stay home a few times, you're stuck with nothing.

When membership is in a death spiral, you can't alienate the ones you still have, or radically change the rules.  At least not in a volunteer paradigm.

"These are the rules, if you don't like it stay home..." doesn't provide the results you want when the only ones who show aren't the "specials".

BTDT almost verbatim in my wing.

Until the membership trends are fixed, CAP is stuck with thems they got.  And the FNGs, assuming you start growing them, are useless for at
least a year if not longer.

Also, and non-trivial, CAP as a whole should probably decide what it's mission "is", before it gets too excited about typing teams, because it's going to
type itself right out of business based on someone's conjecture and missions it doesn't have and / or can't perform anyway (for the usual 10 reasons).

[Spam]

You know, I think that on volunteerism you're preaching to the choir here, Eclipse, and I hope you aren't implying that I've put forth an elitist approach, as opposed to matching individuals to teams, and teams/crews to tasks.


(Read my post again - not sure where the "if you don't like it stay home" quote came from - it was not me).


V/R
Spam

[Eclipse]

Spam - none of that was directed at you, only a response to the general issue.

[Toad1168]

Does anyone else see a trend where SAR missions will be conducted by the professional paid types and CAP will become mainly air support?  With many states and local jurisdictions employing professionally paid and staffed SAR teams, I wonder how much longer the CAP ground team will be relevant.

[Eclipse]

Does anyone else see a trend where SAR missions will be conducted by the professional paid types and CAP will become mainly air support?  With many states and local jurisdictions employing professionally paid and staffed SAR teams, I wonder how much longer the CAP ground team will be relevant.

It's not a "trend", it's just SOP.

CAP is an augmentation at best, it's never been, and never will be a first-responder / golden hour resource.
I haven't seen any change in the way or amount CAP is used, certainly not losing any "more" business to paid agencies.

If anything states and municipalities are doing less with paid professionals because they have less money.
CAP could capitalize on that reality and become a premier resource, but we've been saying that for the entirety of the
17 years since been in and nothing has changed.

"When they see what we can do for free, they are gonna go nuts!"

"Did you ever call them?"

"Meant to, got busy with the SUI..."

"Oh well, next year."

Next year...

"Did you call them?"

"Yes! They were super excited and called us out almost immediately!"

"Great!  Finally progress..."

"...well..."

"((*sigh*))...what?"

"They called on a Tuesday, most of our people were at meetings, the two pilots near a plane were
sick, and Jim couldn't get out of work...so...we didn't' respond...I don't expect we'll hear back from them any
time soon..."

"...but NEXT YEAR, you wait!"

CAP needs to be on the short list for 3 and 4-letter agencies like FEMA and HLS, with an actual strategic plan and
strategic pressure to increase membership and proficiency.  There needs to be Federal pressure on the states
to draft meaningful MOUs (my state won't even entertain the conversation), that include CAP as a "second call" not
a "Hey guys, can we play?" etc., etc.

Not to mention partnerships (not rhetoric) with organizations like the ARC.

Maybe next year.

[Chappie]

Does anyone else see a trend where SAR missions will be conducted by the professional paid types and CAP will become mainly air support?  With many states and local jurisdictions employing professionally paid and staffed SAR teams, I wonder how much longer the CAP ground team will be relevant.

I know that in the county that I reside in, the Sheriff's Office (and I work there in IT) has its own volunteer aero squadron, SAR, and mounted posse. Each of those groups has their own organizational structure, training, and resources -- in other words, self-sufficient.   CAP has never been involved in a county mission. 

[Spaceman3750]

Does anyone else see a trend where SAR missions will be conducted by the professional paid types and CAP will become mainly air support?  With many states and local jurisdictions employing professionally paid and staffed SAR teams, I wonder how much longer the CAP ground team will be relevant.

I know that in the county that I reside in, the Sheriff's Office (and I work there in IT) has its own volunteer aero squadron, SAR, and mounted posse. Each of those groups has their own organizational structure, training, and resources -- in other words, self-sufficient.   CAP has never been involved in a county mission.

But that certainly isn't the case everywhere. My area has anywhere from well-developed ground SAR teams to "SAR what now?". None have air resources - they all call the state police for air support, and sometimes CAP if the incident is of sufficient scale. We've worked next to them (state police air ops) before, they're good people.

Someone from a county team brought up a phenomenal point at a BISC I recently attended. "The thing is, when we ask for an airplane from the state police or wherever else, that's exactly what we get. An airplane, with a pilot and observer. We don't really know how to use them best, and they just do what we tell them to." They seemed very receptive to my pitch (as the group ESO covering their area) that "If you request air assets from us, you also get a CAP IC and planning people to help you figure out how to use them" and also "Even if you have all the air assets you need but aren't sure how to use them - call AFRCC and tell them that. We will send you a couple people to help you plan your air operations, no problem."

[PHall]

Does anyone else see a trend where SAR missions will be conducted by the professional paid types and CAP will become mainly air support?  With many states and local jurisdictions employing professionally paid and staffed SAR teams, I wonder how much longer the CAP ground team will be relevant.

I know that in the county that I reside in, the Sheriff's Office (and I work there in IT) has its own volunteer aero squadron, SAR, and mounted posse. Each of those groups has their own organizational structure, training, and resources -- in other words, self-sufficient.   CAP has never been involved in a county mission.

And don't forget the five years or so when CAP was not allowed to even do ELT searches in your county all because one of our "members" did something really stupid and the Sheriff decided to fix the problem by banning CAP in his county.

[USACAP]

Correct:

The PT standard is under revision, I saw a copy of it over the summer. 
If I remember correctly, it goes to a composite score and there are score adjustments for age and sex.
MK