Recruiting senior members for GSAR

[RiverAux]

I think that assisting local authorities in ground search and rescue for lost persons is the one area with a great potential for growth in CAP ES missions, but for a variety of organizational reasons, we haven't really done anything about it.  However, should a squadron, group, or wing, really want to get into it, they could.  However, there are some things they have to deal with first, and the most difficult is being able to field a large group of trained personnel on a consistent basis.  The county sheriff will expect us to bring more than a handful of folks if we are to be a credible part of his arsenal. 

However, the most difficult recruiting challenge I have seen in CAP is bringing in members that are specifically interested in doing ground search and rescue work.
Why is that? 

One issue is that CAP has a great deal of difficulty in recruiting seniors under 40, which are generally probably going to be your go-to guys for ground SAR work.  Yes, I know older folks can often be in better physical shape, yada, yada, yada, but they've never comprised the heart of any CAP ground team I've seen sent to the field for real hard-core training or missions.  So, for now, lets assume that this is the core group we're going after for GSAR.  We've often discussed why its hard to recruit younger members, so no need to dwell on those reasons. 

I think the other thing that makes it difficult to bring in seniors to do GSAR is the extremely close linkage between the cadet program and GSAR.  Basically, in CAP if you want to do GSAR you're directed towards working with the cadet program because senior programs, as a general rule, spend little or no time on GSAR topics.  So, the GSAR training is usually only done during cadet meetings, cadet FTXs, or SAREXs where the ground teams are mostly cadets. 

I think that the cadet dominance of the ground team program puts a bit of a stigma on it that may keep a lot of adults from joining up.  They may be very interested in doing GSAR, but have no interest at all in working with the cadet program and theres nothing at all wrong with that.   

I've really tried to think of ways around this, but haven't come up with much.  The best I've got is for each group or Wing to develop a group or Wing level super ground team made up of senior members that would conduct regular GSAR training.  This would develop a strong core of GSAR folks that will be very familiar with working with each other and that will probably be around for a while.  Again, not to get too sidetracked, but the majority of the cadets you train for GSAR work leave just about when they get to be useful. 

I think if you had a strong, adult oriented GSAR training program it would be a lot easier both to sell the program to sheriffs as well as to potential recruits who are not interested in working with cadets. 

And this would actually probably strengthen our cadet GSAR program as well since the seniors teaching them would have a lot more opportunity to use and improve their own skills as part of the adult GSAR training program, making them better able to teach cadets. 

Anyone have some better ideas on how to bring more adults in to do GSAR?   

[LittleIronPilot]

RiverAux....the "super SAR" Senior thing is ongoing in my Wing.

It seems to be sorta-working. However there are people that feel it is "special" or "elite" and that the training dollars are better spent training everyone (though to your point, the VAST majority of GSAR we have are cadets).

There was some vertical rescue training offered, but only to the super-SAR team and boy did that create a firestorm. I understood their logic, this type of training in unique and they wanted people to be AVAILABLE to go when needed, not just a bunch of people signing up because the training is "cool".

BTW...you are gonna get hammered for suggesting that we do GSAR without cadets (I agree BTW).

[Eclipse]

Its not a matter of "suggesting" it, its the reality.

This is another case where local perception is assumed to be national reality.  Its not.

Cadets are involved in GSAR in my area, but their is no assumption that GSAR is a "cadet thing" or requires working with cadets.

Sometimes they are there, sometimes they aren't.  They are members just like everyone else, and its part of the deal.

I have 10 people right now prepping for hurricane relief operations, all GSAR, no cadets.

The reason we have issues getting seniors involved in GSAR is that the expectation and opportunity to participate are not made clear during recruiting.  We setup the booth next to the plane on an open house ramp and tell them to come and "fly for free" - avoiding any discussions about real work, staff duties, or ground operations, because we don't want to scare them away, then we're surprised when new members push back with "that's not what I signed up for".

The minimum expectation for aircrew, pilots included, should be that they are UDF qualified so that they understand what the ground guys are going through, and in a lot of cases they can fly to an airport with
a DF unit and prosecute a search in stead of just orbiting the airfield or sitting on the ramp.

[RADIOMAN015]

 Vast majority of senior members have NO interest in ground search team operations.  Recruiting is based upon flying -- everyone wants to fly!!!  I have problems just trying to get mission radio operators for mission base operations.  When you add all the equipment necessary for GSAR deployment, added risk with cadets etc, it's an upward hill battle.  Perhaps the UDF team aspect might get some interest from the radio technical side (and some of the senior pilots/operations officers have recommended to the new pilots that it's a good idea to get the UDF training because weather may prevent flying).
BTW I salute any/all senior members that are willing to spend the time/effort in working with the cadets on the ground team training.  I'm always willing to help our new squadron ES officer with the radio comm aspect of the training.   Unfortunately, again, I think you will find that it's very difficult to find senior members to staff the ground teams & this minimum senior staffing affects the amount/type of training you can do, since you really need two senior members with the cadets during field (woods) type operations.     

[DNall]

I'm much less comfortable with the GSAR missing person search. That can turn into "hey, dead girl/crime scene" or here we are in the field & reports might be kidnapping... gets hairy real quick & outside the bounds of anything we can or should be involved in - and that's a good thing.

That said, I'm highly in favor of many more adults for GSAR. We know already we're going to face mission situations where we can only use 18+ members. And for practical purposes, I really have a problem putting a GT with cadets on a primary grid where I just about know there's a downed aircraft. I have a bigger problem getting that site searched when it's going to involve line search in the weeds & I don't want to use cadets for that. I've faced that real-world situation a few times, and I hate it big time!!

My best suggestion organizationally would be... min ages for the ratings. Something like, 12 for UDF, 14 for GTM3, 16 for GMT2, 18 for GTM1. Then add a section to the GT sortie ORM worksheet that requires evaluating the GT level for the sortie. Obviously, likely distress find being a GTM1 sortie. Something like that also makes it real simple to identify and deploy resources for bigger missions. It's kind of like FEMA resource typing, but more specific within our lane. I really really really think that's a policy we should absolutely pursue. It doesn't make any sense that we have a min age for MS/MO & not for the GT side. While we're at it, FLM should be at least 14 also.

I think something like that would really boost the program on the cadet side also. It paces them thru the training so they don't burn thru it & get bored. It gives them phased goals. I wouldn't mind seeing min grade requirements for each of those levels on the cadet side also. Yep, more I think about it, the more I think this would be an excellent policy to look into. What's yall's take?

[cap235629]

we have the opposite problem in our squadron, only 1 GTM qualified cadet.  We have 2 full teams, all seniors, wish they would come out for more sarex's but they are always there when it comes to real missions.  Most of which are missing person searches assisting local agencies........go figure

[Eclipse]

I like the idea of minimum ages and minimum grade.  Let them get a little more CAP'in under their belt before going hunting.

[DNall]

But still not shutting them off from ES ya know. UDF is a big part of the missions & that's open at 12 w/ curry now. Set GTM1 at 18 w/ mitchell & filter the rest in between. Keeps them moving.motivated on both side of the program. Keeps the brand new 16yo cadet from jumping ahead based on age alone.

No grade/TIS requirements on the adult side, but still you get team classification that puts the better qual'd folks on the higher probability sorties.

And you still don't get shut down if you don't have qual'd teams. It's just like ORM with the approval level for med/high/very high risk. If you want to put a GTM2 team on a GTM1 sortie, you need IC approval. If you want a GTM3 team on that sortie you have to clear it w/ the Wg/CC. You can still do it, but the decision to take the risk goes to higher, where it should be.

This solution seems elegantly simple to me. It's perfect. We can't hardly screw it up & I'm not really seeing a downside.

[Eclipse]

This solution seems elegantly simple to me. It's perfect. We can't hardly screw it up & I'm not really seeing a downside.

I agree, and I would also bet that the majority of cadets active in ES fall into the above age brackets organically anyway, other than the small number of cadets who attend NESA or HMRS.

[DNall]

Sure... plus, with NESA/HMRS, they don't slam thru the stuff in a year or two & then get bored sitting back on their bling & uber-eliteness. With it broken up by age you: a) get a more mature cadet at progressively higher/harder/more complex levels, b) get to take a step back and do really well-rounded training rather than check-boxing a bunch of random tasks, and c) give them something meaningful to advance thru year over year that continues to open up more & more options for them as they continue to be involved.

Man, who's got a Wg/CC handy? We need to pitch some policy right quick.

[RiverAux]

I suppose I should have clarified that I'm not really interested in having senior "super" ground teams train outside the normal parameters of what CAP ground teams regularly do, just making sure that every senior member on it is rock-solid in the currently required skills through regular sessions of as difficult and intense training as they can pull off. 

BTW...you are gonna get hammered for suggesting that we do GSAR without cadets (I agree BTW).

Actually, I'm not.  I think that there should be seniors only training, but with the expectation that often the actual missions will utilize teams made up both of seniors and cadets.  I think that by offering such senior-only training we have a better chance of bringing in adults who want to do GSAR without basically having to get super involved with the day-to-day administration of the cadet program. 

But, that aside, doesn't anyone have any real good ideas for bringing in seniors for GSAR?  The super GT idea really only addresses part of the problem, and perhaps not a big part at that. 

[DNall]

River.. I'm not suggesting "super" GTs. As you said, a lot of our members are a bit older, focused on flying, etc - we don't get the 21-40 yo athletic field type folks that want to buy a bunch of gear & slog thru the mud. So, we use our cadets as a crutch to get that done, with minimal adult supervision. That's fine for UDF, but not at all okay for redcap.

If you want more adults in GSAR, you have to go outside the org to get them, and that only happens when you qualify the need and facilitate the solution. By blocking off younger cadets from sorties they should not be involved in, you create a need for adults to fill those positions or CAP can't operate. That means adults can't just push it off on cadets. They have to train for & do that mission, and they have to recruit to fill that need. The guy on the outside looking in sees there is actually a need for him & training avail to meet that mission readiness requirement.

[RiverAux]

By blocking off younger cadets from sorties they should not be involved in, you create a need for adults to fill those positions or CAP can't operate.

I just don't see CAP leadership making that call so long as they're more or less satisfied with continuing to use our ground teams primarily for UDF and occassional missing airplane searches.  At a national level I don't see them doing that unless forced to do so. 

So, lets assume for the purposes of this thread that all existing national regulations will continue as they are now....if a squadron or wing wants to recruit more seniors for GSAR, how might they do it?

[DNall]

I just don't see CAP leadership making that call so long as they're more or less satisfied with continuing to use our ground teams primarily for UDF and occassional missing airplane searches.  At a national level I don't see them doing that unless forced to do so. 

I'm not sure that's correct. Missing airplane search is what I'm referring to when I say inappropriate for younger cadets. As I said, missing person is a very dicey issue. I'm more comfortable with air on that one than ground. Disaster I think is the better place to focus for mission expansion. In that area we've already seen age restrictions imposed by customers. Even the AF has serious restrictions on benefits avail to under 18 members. That should in itself impose major restrictions, as should general liability issues for exposing kids to bad things. Those are all issues CAP has been very responsive to.

So, lets assume for the purposes of this thread that all existing national regulations will continue as they are now....if a squadron or wing wants to recruit more seniors for GSAR, how might they do it?

There is no good answer to that. Targeted recruiting is the same for anything. If you need a comm officer you go to an amateur radio club & pitch that aspect of the program. If you want pilots, you go where pilots are & sell our flying aspects. If you want GT types, go to places where active young folks hang out - rock climbing, hiking, orienteering, etc. Talk to cops, EMS, fire fighters, volunteer FFs, red cross folks, CERT teams.... etc. Find the target audience and sell that aspect of your local Sq program. Be ready for incoming, have training set for FEMA courses, exercises with other agencies, etc.

On a Wg level... there's units focused on cadets, adult units focused on flying, why not start an adult unit focused on GSAR. A few in strategic spots. Over time you'll get there.

If you want a specific idea..... FLWG has the RECON program with the state to do air/grd photo assessment. I pitched an idea a year ago or so about integrated air/grd task force w/ a command & control RV, trailer, etc... front end assessment right behind the winds to help direct federal resources, yada yada. Put together a capability like that with these adult GSAR focused units taking the lead, offer that capability to state EOC & 1AF/FEMA. Pattern after Fl recon & ref them in your pitch - FL obviously is fairly respected in terms of disaster response.

[RiverAux]

Personally, I think focusing ground teams on missing airplane searches is a mistake.  We've got to train them to do that mission, but it is a rare situation where a ground team actually makes a huge difference in one of those searches.  You're not going to get those young folks to join to do GSAR based on the idea that maybe once a year they might get a missing airplane search and maybe once every 5 years they might actually get in on a find. 

Thats why we need to focus on lost person searches.  They happen much more often and there is a big need for trained GSAR to assist the local authorities in them.  A CAP squadron or wing with a large core of die-hard GSAR folks could probably have an oppportunity to do half a dozen missions a year or more in most states once the proper relationships have been built. 

The legal issues with lost person searches are no more difficult than they are with missing airplane searches and I see no reason to shy away from them.  In both cases you need to worry about evidence protection.  The way I figure it, if the sheriff is just fine with a bunch of un-trained yahoos being sent off to look for a lost hiker, CAP should be able to handle it with flying colors. 

I agree that a DR strategy for ground teams is sorely lacking, but I see that as lower priority than recruiting people to utilize the training programs we already have for SAR missions.  And, I just don't see GT DR missions as a big draw for younger folks, but more as something for our GSAR teams to do as an alternative mission.   

The ideas for recruiting are good though I'd probably not concentrate on recruiting from other existing first responder/DR organizations.  I wouldn't turn them away, of course, but we get more bang for our buck by recruiting people primarily dedicated to CAP.   

[DNall]

That's funny, cause we are focused primarily on missing aircraft all over the country, yet people are motivated to participate in GSAR. PJs are focused on downed aircraft too & they seem pretty popular.

Certainly I agree we can't make that all we do, but missing person isn't the answer either. The reason that's a primarily sheriff search teams is cause it for the most part a criminal search in the making. That is not something a CAP member of any age should be involved in. I understand we can restrictively offer our services for missing hikers & such, but that's going to only impact very targeted areas (parks, etc), and in doing so we cause that LE agency not to develop resources they can rely on when it is a criminal situation. Basically, I think it's a bad idea. On the other hand, I think there is a vast amount we can do in disaster response that has nothing to do with tossing sand bags or handing out blankets. That again is an area that people all over the country volunteer and train hard for regardless if they go out once a year or 20 times. It's the historical save the world aspect of the work they want to be part of.

[sarmed1]

The reason that's a primarily sheriff search teams...

Thats a matter of loctional perspective really.  In PA I have yet run into a "Sheriff's Search team" (or any other police search team) most teams are either fire department based, independant groups or CAP.

There is always the potential for "foul play" but that usually determined before non LE aspects are brought into play; on those type of searches I have seen primarily LE units conducting "search" until its determined otherwise...but the lost hiker, hunter, fisherman, kayaker or alzhimers patient is much more common.  In may past residency in PA, CAP was good for at least a 1/2 dozen of those a year.

Agreed though, a real DR response capability is something CAP needs to look at, not just the fill sandbags and hand out water type of operations.....RECON is an excellent model to build off of.

I liked the TACP type model as well (as was discussed awhile back in another thread)

mk

[DNall]

All/most/lots of missing persons searches have a high probability to end up criminal in mid stream (reflected in FEMA trng recommendations). AFRCC is involved with some searches when they feel that's a low probability, and abruptly pull the plug when that starts going the other way. I'm a lot more comfortable participating in that kind of thing from the air then having a team halfway up the mountain & they have to turn around and be replaced by some other asset that has to be activated cause we can't/shouldn't/won't be involved in that kind of work for any reason.

I don't see a lot of high side to drastically increasing GSAR capability for that kind of mission profile.

Locally speaking, I have NEVER seen CAP involved in missing person searches. A couple way out west in Big Bend, but park rangers did the ground work that we weren't/aren't capable of. The only missing person searches I've seen happen locally that involved any kind of volunteers were equisearch or general civilian participation, and have been exclusively looking for kids bodies in criminal matters.

We're tracking on the disaster response concept. We could have a whole separate conversation on what CAP should be doing in that area (as Ike bears down on me here).

[Eclipse]

My Wing was involved in a missing person's search last week involving an Alzheimer patient with a history of wandering off.

At least 3 different states sent CAP resources, My wing's CV was the IC, (making this his 4 or 5th multi-state real-world in the last threes years) I believe it was something like 8+ ground teams and several of our airplanes, and our IC was directing operations of aircraft from other agencies as well, including helicopters.

Sadly we did not find the missing person, but this type of mission is exactly the kind of thing CAP is good at and should be leaning forward on - we have lots of eyes and lot of boots.

[DNall]

That's fine. I'm not saying those kinds of things shouldn't be done. I just don't think we need to be tailoring our org of the future to focus on that as one of 2-3 primary missions. It's a very narrow mission, and narrower still within that to avoid criminal possibilities.

Personally, I have no idea why you're deploying those kind of resources on such a search. Is this out in some giant national forest or what? I mean we'd put an Amber alert out on something like that & LE agencies would devote some resources, but it's rather unlikely we'd put up air unless there was both an imminent danger (weather) and a high probability of finding them. I'm just really more comfortable leaving that to LE in most cases. I'm willing to give them some air support, less so with the ground for the several reasons I stated (other than criminal).

If we're going to set aside missing aircraft as our primary focus & pick up something else, I think the answer there is disaster assessment & response.

CAP is not a SaR agency. It is an agency that conducts Search (not so much rescue) as part of a larger package of support to civil authorities. Disaster fits better into that scheme than many other SaR missions.