CAP Reputation

[Flying Pig]

So, I was flying an LE mission in an undisclosed area (not Fresno).  I landed and met my observer at the airport in another part of the state.  We met in the pilots lounge to discuss the days mission.  He was actually the air unit Lt. from the agency I was supporting.  Their aircraft was down, so we were assisting.  After the brief, we started making small talk.  Mostly about some recent SAR ops.  He then asks if I have ever used that flying circus knows as Civil Air Patrol.  I decide to lay low, but say I am familiar with them and that we have a unit in Fresno.  Anyway, he lays out his concerns. 
It wasn't about uniforms, physical fitness, flying ability, it was about information sharing and paperwork.  IN fact, he said from what he has seen, CAP actually has a very rigid set of standards to be a pilot.  (Yes and No)
Being a Sheriff, his agency, as we know, is constitutionally responsible for SAR, at least in CA.  He outlined very articulately that in past SARs he could get nothing out of CAP.  No radio freq's, no information on search grids.  As the SAR IC, he said he would talk to the CAP IC, but that they would not allow the Sheriff IC into the CAP Command Post.  He said he was often met with "Sorry Sir, thats OPSEC and we cannot disclose it."  Hmmmm, does that sound familiar?  He said what really torqued him was when he was talking with someone and realized it was the PIO.  Which led me to believe he wasn't making it up.  He said it got to the point that CAP was running their own SAR vs being a resource.  This was a SAR for a lost plane.  He said the CAP IC's were very unapproachable and essentially treated him like he was in the way vs. the Sheriff IC.  And this is a department that has its own Air Unit as well. He said that while he was trying to meet with the CAP staff, they were always excusing themselves to run off to meetings and tapping away on their I-Phones and Blackberries.  He said one morning he and another S.O. sergeant walked in the CAP CP and that a CAP member actually covered the sectional on the wall with a large sheet of white butcher paper so they couldn't see the search grids.

So, some things to be mindful of.  His experiences were strikingly similar to some CAP SAR's I have been on where I have watched CAP ICs an base staff treat people like crap when they ask simple questions vs just taking the time to explain the situation or use some common courtesy in explaining why we may not be able to pass on info instead of just throwing out the work OPSEC and walking away.  I will say, sometimes I think CAP members can keep a secret about nothing better than a CIA Officer sometimes.  (Sorry Paul. at least I didnt say "Agent")

In a nutshell, I finally copped to who I was in my secret life and tried to explain some things to him.  I also let him know that he was 100% free to contact the CAP command staff for CAWG and address his concerns to them and that CAP was full of people 100% willing to give the shirt off their back to assist.  However, like everywhere else, we have our 10% as well.  I am going to be contacting the Sq CC for that area and the Grp CC to make them aware of at least the perception.  As this Lt. has advised that they will not need CAP for anything.   

One thing I thought was interesting to was that his "buddy" who is a cop back east, said their local CAP squadron has a Cessna Caravan and a King Air 350.  He said he couldnt believe that Congress was buying the all volunteer CAP millions upon millions of dollars of turbo prop aircraft and also UAV's for drug interdiction when full time LE was laying off cops.  He was also under the belief that we as CAP has fleet of Jet Rangers also that we did drug interdiction with.  I explained the Predator Program to him, and he relented to me that he misunderstood and thought CAP had the predators.

Anyway, that last part was just pure mis-information.  Amuzing but sad.  It took me a while to convince him that his information was just 100% FALSE in regards to our fleet of King Airs being flown by Private Pilots. However, the first part was the perception of a SAR IC of a rather large Sheriff's Department that has a couple of CAP units in it.  So when you are dealing with people, yes, as volunteers we as CAP members may get treated different by local agencies.  Thats where the quite professional comes in.  Dont let people walk on us, but realize we are just that, volunteers assisting as a resource.  Sometimes we are running the op.  Many times, the local agency is more than willing to give it all to CAP and are greatful.  Other times, we may be assisting agencies who really dont need us or maybe didnt even ask for us.  They are 100% self supporting. You may be assisting a department who just needs you to wait in the corner until you are needed.  Either way, perception is reality sometimes and facts can be irrelevant.  But, his description of how he was treated in the CP were spot on with how I have seen people treated in some of our CP's.

Take it for what its worth.  He was a customer.  Oh, by the way, I mentioned to him that he could be a tremendous asset to his local CAP unit and that his experience would be greatly embraced. 

[bosshawk]

Rob: you remembered the conversation about "agent"-----good.  You and I both remember the search for the missing motor glider and the base staff. 

Folks: what Rob is relating is not fiction: most of that really happened.

[Hawk200]

The issues the individual discussed with you seem to mirror allies' issues with the Air Force in overseas operations. Joint operations, but not a sharing of information.

Under NIMS/ICS, this lack of participation could be a killer for joint operations. Information is supposed to be shared. A subordinate agency that isn't sharing information during an incident isn't a team player. It amazes me that we've got a number of joint operations training and we're getting 800 MHz equipment, but we're not using it in the manner intended. You can dress up like a team, and buy all the equipment if you want; but if you don't act like one, you're worthless.

"I've got a secret" isn't a game to play on missions.

[cap235629]

and we're getting 800 MHz equipment,

Huh?

[Eclipse]

The first class for a 101 card, with monthly refreashers if necessary, should be "CAP's place in the grande scheme."

If there is one place we fail, and where learning would increase out value its right there.

My mantra is "undersell, overproduce, sit quietly, and know your place."

[Hawk200]

The first class for a 101 card, with monthly refreashers if necessary, should be "CAP's place in the grande scheme."

I'll second that, I'd even teach it if we had one. So, how do we go about making one?

[EMT-83]

Death by PowerPoint, then an open-book test.

[FW]

It is really a shame we have that "perception" in CAWG.  I didn't realize there could be 2 IC's for a mission (at the same time).   Oh, well. back to the classroom...

[bosshawk]

Fred: I sincerely wish that it was a "perception".

[JC004]

...
I didn't realize there could be 2 IC's for a mission (at the same time).
...

I don't know how many times I have used those exact words.  It makes my skin crawl (and just did here) hearing the term "CAP IC" (as opposed to the IC of the mission). 

Not only should an IC know about the whole concept behind ICS - especially having ONE command, but that is ICS-100-level stuff.  Isn't that why the Agency Liaison specialty came to be?

I have heard this same sort of thing from other agencies...(never about these crazy aircraft, though)

It is things like this which make CAP irrelevant and make members get fed up.  There isn't a lot of information that can't be shared on a regular SAR mission.  Withholding information from the agency in charge isn't going to make you any friends or get you any more missions.

[RiverAux]

If things happened the way the guy said he did, he has a legit beef.  Given the way things are related about how SAR in CA works, I would be a little surprised that any CAP members have managed to develop that sort of high-handed attitude. 

Now, I do see a way that this could have happened and in which the CAP people may have acted appropriately --- If a CAP base receives a call from out of the blue from someone saying they're with the Podunk Sheriffs Office and need some info about the search, I certainly wouldn't give it to them right then.  I would politely see what info they need and tell them that we're going to get back in touch with them through the sheriff's office published phone number.  Or, if they're on a cell, that we're going to call the sheriff and verify that a person with their name and cell # works for them and is representing them in this case.  Only then would I be open with info. 

After all, this could be a reporter trying to scam info out of them. 

But, if this represents cases where the CAP people knew very well who they were dealing with and acted this way, they weren't doing things right. 

[wuzafuzz]

What a sad story.  Those CAP members had a rare opportunity to sell themselves.  Instead they blew it for themselves and everyone who follows.  It's appalling but not unexpected.  Talk about missed opportunities.  Who knows how many other departments have had their perception of CAP negatively influenced by conversations just like the one Robert shared?  In those cases CAP never gets a chance to prove itself.  I know of agencies holding a "grudge" against CAP for issues that took pace 10-20 years ago. 

"Charm school" should be required of all our IC's and liaisons, if not all senior mission staff.  (Even a freshly minted 2d Lt can do us in under the right circumstances.)  They should be conscious of "selling" CAP in everything they do.  I won't even start with the "CAP IC" versus the real IC and knowing our place in the scheme of things. 

Depending on when the story took place, I can sympathize with the plight of staff being asked for frequency data.  Most of our members have no clue and they have been told it's secret squirrel information. Without a preexisting permission I can see the opportunity for friction there.  Our people think it's forbidden fruit and the sheriff's people probably have no concept of NTIA vs FCC, etc.  Having said that, I'd like to think we could offer a liaison person with a radio, or have "my radio person chat with your radio person."  Chances are the right people could smooth that over and make something work.  I can't think of any reason to withhold anything else from the REAL incident commander, but I'm just a lowly CUL.

[Custer]

Being a Sheriff, his agency, as we know, is constitutionally responsible for SAR, at least in CA.  He outlined very articulately that in past SARs he could get nothing out of CAP.  No radio freq's, no information on search grids.  As the SAR IC, he said he would talk to the CAP IC, but that they would not allow the Sheriff IC into the CAP Command Post.   He said one morning he and another S.O. sergeant walked in the CAP CP and that a CAP member actually covered the sectional on the wall with a large sheet of white butcher paper so they couldn't see the search grids..

I really wish someone else had said that so I could at least think it was an exaggeration.  Beyond that I'm at a loss for words.

[arajca]

As a wing dc, I am one of those responsible for keeping our freq. "secret". That being said, there are enough mutual aid and interoperability channels available that we shouldn't need to share our freqs. HOWEVER, if an IC needs the info, the CAP incident CUL can refer them to me. That takes the CUL out of the problem loop, if it comes up. Most wing dcs should be doing something similar.

For those who say we can just throw a MRO with a radio into their comm unit, remember, we don't always have extra MROs or equipment to do that.

[desertengineer1]

If these statements are accurate, it's a perfect example of what I had feared when the OPSEC mess began - execution.  As I posted numerous times regarding the frequency fiasco, we did an extremely poor job of implementation.  We just threw the rules out and let anyone with a crayon and an imagination interperet the rules as they saw fit.

There's nothing wrong with releasing frequencies to a local agency.  It just needs to be approved, and can be done within a day.  In an emergency, it can be done almost immediately.  It's just a phone call.

There's nothing wrong with showing agencies "The big Board" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-67E9d13_I.

We're supposed to.  If we cannot get that through our thick heads, we shouldn't be doing missions.

What happened to the interoperability thing we all talked about for years?

[wuzafuzz]

For those who say we can just throw a MRO with a radio into their comm unit, remember, we don't always have extra MROs or equipment to do that.

I mentioned that as one possibility among many.  If we have the folks and toys, it's an option.  If not, pursue other options.  My point was there are a variety of ways to handle that scenario within the rules.  All it takes is smarts and a willingness to play well with other children.  Something that was horribly lacking in the story related in the original post.  Frequency data was only a small part of the problem.  It had everything to do with attitude, IMHO.

[wuzafuzz]

There's nothing wrong with showing agencies "The big Board" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-67E9d13_I.

We're supposed to.  If we cannot get that through our thick heads, we shouldn't be doing missions.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Pylon]

Two things fix these types of misperception, misinformation, and bad interactions.

1.  Improved CAP training.  Virtually all of our ES education should include a lot more on interagency operations.  More and more, most of our ops will become interagency, and CAP will be less and less likely to be the overall IC on these ops.  Every specialty qualification should understand what they can and can't do/share/say with regards to outside agencies, and how to treat them on missions. 

Right now, you dn't get a whole lot on what do with interagency stuff until you get to the really high qualifications like IC and Liaisons.   Better education from the ground up = reduction of these types of instances from ignorance.   People in any capacity on ES ops should know how to handle interagency personnel and requests - from the MSA through air and ground crews to the branch-directors and up.   You'll still have people who act like bozos, but every organization has these.   

2.  Improved education of clients and potential clients.  A really nice, well-designed booklet that introduces CAP, shares our actual resources and qualifications, and plainly lays out the procedures for requesting CAP's help  (like a professionally-designed and professionally-rewritten version of the old CAPabilities Handbook) would go a long way to educating other agencies (like Sheriffs and LEOs, state and county EMOs, etc.) and reducing misconceptions about who we are, what we do, and how to use us.

[RADIOMAN015]

As a wing dc, I am one of those responsible for keeping our freq. "secret". That being said, there are enough mutual aid and interoperability channels available that we shouldn't need to share our freqs. HOWEVER, if an IC needs the info, the CAP incident CUL can refer them to me. That takes the CUL out of the problem loop, if it comes up. Most wing dcs should be doing something similar.

For those who say we can just throw a MRO with a radio into their comm unit, remember, we don't always have extra MROs or equipment to do that.

In general the AF as a policy does not release their frequencies to local public safety agencies.  What they do (as with our support AF Reseve Base) is to get radios that will operate on the various public safety mutual aid frequencies in the local area.   They are lucky here because Fire, Police, & Emergency Services all have VHF high band and are cross link capable to UHF & 800 mhz.  So the base didn't have to buy any special equipment.  Our Reserve Base is completely P25 Digital CAI for all intrabase support nets.

HOWEVER, in our state (wing) there's been a march to 800 mhz and even from VHF low band to UHF even in rural areas.  In some many cases there's no cross band readily available.  So CAP likely would need to have some liasion radios with the technical capabilities to operate on UHF & 800 mhz.

I might also add that the State Police Air Wing helicopters & troops patrol vehicles all have radio scanners in their vehicle so it would be possible for them to monitor CAP frequencies (at least in NFM mode), and we with a radio scanner could monitor their frequencies.  So it would be possible to communicate with them IF they knew what frequency we were operating on & we knew what frequency they would answer us on.     There's no issue with them operating on 122.9 or 123.10 mhz multicom if they need to talk air/ground, ground/air with us, but it's unlikely (other than police air divisions) and maybe their mobile command posts (we'll have to ask them on that) having transmit capabilities on aero AM mode.

As far as keeping our frequencies 'secret', it doesn't look like that's been successful because when you transmit an RF signal eventually someone is going to find it.  There appears to be some radio monitoring hobbyist up to that challenge :angel:
RM
           

[blackrain]

As far as keeping our frequencies 'secret', it doesn't look like that's been successful because when you transmit an RF signal eventually someone is going to find it.  There appears to be some radio monitoring hobbyist up to that challenge :angel:
RM
           

Keeping radio traffic secure is more about encryption now than keeping the frequencies secret. That said we have a saying downrange "who else needs to know". A lot of the information is perishable and if it isn't given in a TIMELY manner to those who can use it it is worthless. I admit it is a balancing act (need to know vs keeping it secret)that can keep you up nights while you are downrange but it's call that has to be made continuously. In a perfect world it would be easy.

I think some of this lesson applies here. Use good judgment is the best I can tell you.

[ZigZag911]

The comm issue is tricky, as far as our CAP specific freqs are concerned.

However, as an IC myself, I'd never tell the local authorities "I can't give you this"; rather, I'd suggest the mutual freqs, and tell them I'd seek authorization for giving them the CAP freqs (which I might well not receive, but even then I've made a good faith effort to work with the local folks).

As for concealing our search grids, that's just plain silly, as well as unsafe...we want other air assets to know where we'll be searching so there is no confusion, unnecessary overlap in search patterns, or risks of mid-air collisions!

[JC004]

Talking about who is legally responsible for SAR reminded me of that chart that is broken down by state, showing what agency is responsible in each state (sheriff, CAP, etc.).  Does anyone remember where that chart can be found?

[FW]

2.  Improved education of clients and potential clients.  A really nice, well-designed booklet that introduces CAP, shares our actual resources and qualifications, and plainly lays out the procedures for requesting CAP's help  (like a professionally-designed and professionally-rewritten version of the old CAPabilities Handbook) would go a long way to educating other agencies (like Sheriffs and LEOs, state and county EMOs, etc.) and reducing misconceptions about who we are, what we do, and how to use us.

"Back in the Day", it was SOP to invite outside agencies to our annual SAREX's and, to have table top exercises with outside agencies (role playing) during SAREVAL's.  It was a good way to stay sharp with our interagency skills and, a great way to show our colleagues we could play well with others.  I know there are quite a few wings in CAP which continue with this practice.  However, if the view from some is be xenophobic with their skills, the only missions assigned will be training missions. 

Radio freq. opsec is intended to keep our frequencies from becoming known to unauthorized individuals.  If we are part of a larger operation, everyone involved must know all the information needed to successfully prosecute it.  The IC system was developed just for this purpose.  Or, am I mistaken?  Have we learned anything in the last 9 years?

[Eclipse]

I disagree any of this is "tricky"  CAP operations and information, and for the most part SAR in general, is all "FOUO" - nothing we do is "secret" and another agency requesting information falls squarely into "OU".

[desertengineer1]

The frequency release policy easily accomodates inter-agency operation.  If a state or city emergency or LE agency wants to monitor our comms in day-day operations, that's what an MOU and commpermissions is for. 

I don't understand why people continue to "not get it".  I've explained the OPSEC AFI 10-701 reasoning over and over.  DC's have repeatedly explained the commpermission process.

This is not rocket science.  If you have a need, simply document it through an MOU (or at least cite it as part of an existing MOU for crying out loud), and follow the commpermissions procedure.

If a real world need arises, call the operations center and they will pull the strings needed to get you what you need.

Why is this so hard?

[sardak]

Talking about who is legally responsible for SAR reminded me of that chart that is broken down by state, showing what agency is responsible in each state (sheriff, CAP, etc.).  Does anyone remember where that chart can be found?

You're probably thinking of the "Who's In Charge of Aeronautical SAR?" over at Scott Lanis' CAP ES site:  http://www.cap-es.net/zips/whosar.PDF

This chart is dated 1995 so there may be changes. This chart is for aeronautical SAR only, so doesn't list who else may be "in charge" of SAR. That question should be best answered by the State Search and Rescue Coordinators Council  http://www.ssarcc.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

Mike

[JC004]

That may be what I saw.  Thanks.  I wish there were an updated one...

[BillB]

All of the new CAP frequencies are already posted on scanner web sites. I downloaded them a few months ago and have a scanner all set up with the new frequencies. However the scanner is not P25 capable, but so far CAP has not used any P25 transmissions in my area.

[Flying Pig]

Are there any areas where CAP is actually "responsible" completely for SAR?  I would imagine it would at least default to the State Police of that Wing ultimately.  I would certainly hope there isnt a Wing where volunteers are completely the go-to organization.

[RiverAux]

Are there any areas where CAP is actually "responsible" completely for SAR?  I would imagine it would at least default to the State Police of that Wing ultimately.  I would certainly hope there isnt a Wing where volunteers are completely the go-to organization.

In every state, the state emergency management agency is in charge and the exact working relationship with CAP is laid out in the MOU between that state and CAP.  That being said, CAP does have a somewhat different relationship with states than do many other volunteer organizations since we are representing a federal agency with some direct responsibilities for certain types of missions (AF and air SAR for example).  Additionally, some states also give CAP members some level of status as representatives of the states in some situations.  So, its not like CAP is exactly equivalent to a totally independent random organization of emergency volunteers. 

[RVT]

CAP does have a somewhat different relationship with states than do many other volunteer organizations since we are representing a federal agency with some direct responsibilities for certain types of missions (AF and air SAR for example).  Additionally, some states also give CAP members some level of status as representatives of the states in some situations.  So, its not like CAP is exactly equivalent to a totally independent random organization of emergency volunteers.

And probably no two people have the same idea as to just what that is.  You used "some" four times.  Feel free to call a SAR for me because I'm lost.

[RiverAux]

Its a slightly different relationship in every single state.  Can't lay out each individual situation even if I knew it.  Thats the perils of being in a national organization that has to work with local agencies. 

[sardak]

In every state, the state emergency management agency is in charge

Not a true statement. In Colorado, Montana, New Hampshire and New Mexico , for examples, it is not the state emergency management agency.

Are there any areas where CAP is actually "responsible" completely for SAR?  I would imagine it would at least default to the State Police of that Wing ultimately.  I would certainly hope there isnt a Wing where volunteers are completely the go-to organization.

In Colorado, AFRCC calls COWG directly for missing aircraft and ELT missions. There is no governmental agency that gets the call.

For PLB missions AFRCC calls the Colorado Search and Rescue Board. It is a 100% volunteer organization, including the on-call coordinators.

Mike

[RiverAux]

In every state, the state emergency management agency is in charge

Not a true statement. In Colorado, Montana, New Hampshire and New Mexico , for examples, it is not the state emergency management agency.

So, basically there is no state agency that has any authority over ES activities in those states and CAP can do what it wants?  That must be great.   Actually, I'm assuming it is just some other agency not called "emergency management".  Thats fine and just another example of variations by state.

In Colorado, AFRCC calls COWG directly for missing aircraft and ELT missions. There is no governmental agency that gets the call.

Dollars to donuts that is because there is an MOU between the AFRCC and the state that specifically says it is ok for AFRCC to call out CAP directly.  That doesn't mean that the state has abdicated ultimate authority for the mission, just that they have delegated it to CAP. 

[arajca]

In COWG, CAP does not fall under the OEM (Office of Emergency Management), we fall under the DMVA (Department of Military and Veterans Affairs).  We report to the AG.

[sardak]

^^^
Yes, in some of those states there is a state agency responsible for SAR but it isn't the emergency management agency, which you specifically stated. Here are some of the types of state agencies that have attended the state SAR coordinators meetings: aeronautics, state police, fish and game, military affairs, emergency management and homeland security.

In Colorado, I can assure with you 100% certainty, that there is no state agency with SAR authority statewide for ground or air SAR. CAP is the lead air SAR agency because there is no other choice. It has been this way for many, many years.

Arajca is correct that COWG falls under Military Affairs, as do the Air and Army Guard. However, DMVA is not chartered as, nor does it perform the duties of, the agency having jurisdiction or authority for statewide SAR.

Mike

[RiverAux]

So, you are actually saying that CAP has the full and complete ultimate authority for air SAR in CO?  That this authority is not based on an agreement between AFRCC and some state agency and is not being done under the auspices of an MOU between CAP and the state?  In other words, that because of the magical power of CO Wing, they have this authority based on god given right. 

Must be nice to work in a state where CAP members can actually tell the county sheriffs and the National Guard for that matter to butt out of our air SAR missions. 

[N Harmon]

He said he couldnt believe that Congress was buying the all volunteer CAP millions upon millions of dollars of turbo prop aircraft and also UAV's for drug interdiction when full time LE was laying off cops.

Just to note, quite a few local agencies are being pressed to justify their high-dollar assets like airplanes and helicopters, and the availability of a trained and equipped volunteer organization capable of doing what those assets can do, is occasionally being seen as a threat to their keeping such toys. As a result we have a lot of local agencies making up reasons (some rather silly) as to why CAP does not fit their needs.

I am not saying that is the case here. It is just an observation of mine.

Are there any areas where CAP is actually "responsible" completely for SAR?  I would imagine it would at least default to the State Police of that Wing ultimately.  I would certainly hope there isnt a Wing where volunteers are completely the go-to organization.

Last time I saw the list, which was a few years ago, there were a handful of states where CAP is the responsible entity for SAR.

This list used to be available on the AFRCC's website at: http://www.acc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3721  But now that link goes to a Virginia website and is 404.

[Eclipse]

Wasn't CAP in IAWG the official state SAR agency before the... unpleasantness...what did that actually mean in practice?

[SarDragon]

This list used to be available on the AFRCC's website at: http://www.acc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3721  But now that link goes to a Virginia website and is 404.

I found this, but didn't look at any of the sites:

http://www.vdem.state.va.us/links/otherstate_em/index.cfm

[sardak]

Must be nice to work in a state where CAP members can actually tell the county sheriffs and the National Guard for that matter to butt out of our air SAR missions.

There have been incidents where CAP members have told a sheriff to butt out and the results weren't pretty. This creates issues similar to the one described by the OP. While there isn't a state agency with SAR authority, by law the sheriff is responsible for SAR within his/her jurisdiction. The procedure is that CAP is in charge until "jurisdiction is established," at which time CAP notifies the sheriff. The sheriff may ask CAP to continue, the sheriff may take complete charge, or most often, a "unified command" is established. It's usually more a of a joint operation than a true UC.

The larger issue, which has created long lasting problems, is CAP not notifying the sheriff once "jurisdiction is established."

Mike

[FW]

^ If that's really the case, we have some significant problems with understanding the "way things are" in today's environment.  We have an obligation to follow the rules; not play hero.  The focus should always be on successful outcomes; both procedurally and operationally.  It always amazes me (and it's not just CAP) when posturing is more important than the "save".

As was said before, education is the key however, there needs to be more command guidance in these matters.  Our customers must be confident we can work well with others before we can participate; not only in SAR but DR and CD ops too.

[isuhawkeye]

Since my state was brought up I can speak to a few of the things that were in place when I was in CAP.  I can not however speak to current arangements or programs. 

WIWICAP

The State had an MOU with AFRCC.  This MOU defined the missions that CAP would get called directly to support. Mostly these were ELT missions.  The state Duty officer and County sherif's were designated to coordinate with AFRCC for mission support.  An active working relationship with an understanding of capabilities, resources, and an agressive open training environment allowd for us to process missing person searches as well as other non AFRCC missions. For those the NOC and other coordination entities were worked through

For administrative structure the Wing Commander worked directly with the state adjutant general.  A point of clarification is that the CAP commander retained all controll and management of his resources, but there was a regular business relationship in place which included participation in regular staff meetings. 

this structure provided a very close working relationship offering funding, access to facilities, supplies, and real missions.

YMMV

___________________________________________________________________


on a side note THERE IS ONLY 1 INCIDENT COMMANDER!!!!!!  (recognizind unified command as an acception)  This idea of a seperate independant possibly parallel incident command is bunk

[desertengineer1]

Must be nice to work in a state where CAP members can actually tell the county sheriffs and the National Guard for that matter to butt out of our air SAR missions.

I really hope that was sarcasm!   

Again, if an IC is doing such a thing, we deserve everything we get.

[RiverAux]

Must be nice to work in a state where CAP members can actually tell the county sheriffs and the National Guard for that matter to butt out of our air SAR missions.

I really hope that was sarcasm!   

Again, if an IC is doing such a thing, we deserve everything we get.

In this case, someone was asserting that CAP has independent authority to run air SAR missions in CO, which I believe is incorrect and that there actually is some MOU between the state and CAP and the state and AFRCC that delegates such authority to CAP. 

[Smithsonia]

'^^^^^^
River;
SARDAK knows best on this one. He's the guy that talks to the state all day, everyday. He's our AFRCC and State liaison. I was amazed when he showed me the MOU back in April. Once upon a time we ran the state of Colorado for SAR. Although things have changed it's still in the MOU.

[RiverAux]

'^^^^^^
River;
SARDAK knows best on this one. He's the guy that talks to the state all day, everyday. He's our AFRCC and State liaison. I was amazed when he showed me the MOU back in April. Once upon a time we ran the state of Colorado for SAR. Although things have changed it's still in the MOU.

So, there IS an MOU.  Thats what I've been saying all along.  A state certainly can delegate authority to CAP. 

This particular subplot was started by a question from Flying Pig about whether there was any state where CAP had "complete" authority for SAR.  I asserted that in no state did CAP have any such authority but that in certain places some authority had been delegated to us by the state through MOUs but that even in those cases the state was still ultimately in charge.

[Smithsonia]

^^^^^^^
River;
There are number of historical documents upon which the MOU is built. I have seen several of those documents too. While the names of the documents and the dates escape me. My confidence in SARDAK's command of the subject and communication of the details does NOT escape me. He knows of what he speaks.

Through the years the State of Colorado has been served ever so well by the Patrol. Our list of history making firsts and mosts - Is legendary and the result of good members performing great deeds under the authority of these documents. BUT, we crossed a few lines (years ago) and have been chastised for it. In the 70s through 90s we even crossed state lines and told the out of state reporters that the "Colorado" Civil Air Patrol (Not the Civil Air Patrol in general) performed the rescue/find/save. That didn't go well with Wing Commanders in states that border Colorado. We deserved to have our kiester kicked for that. Our hind ends are still red and well as our faces about those cases. Being that Colorado has 7 adjoining states (can you name them all without looking at a map?)... that is a bunch of peaved off Colonels once upon a time.

We all learn and get humbler as we go.

[JC004]

...
on a side note THERE IS ONLY 1 INCIDENT COMMANDER!!!!!!  (recognizind unified command as an acception)  This idea of a seperate independant possibly parallel incident command is bunk

ty.

[FW]

^^^^^^^
River;
There are number of historical documents upon which the MOU is built. I have seen several of those documents too. While the names of the documents and the dates escape me. My confidence in SARDAK's command of the subject and communication of the details does NOT escape me. He knows of what he speaks.

Through the years the State of Colorado has been served ever so well by the Patrol. Our list of history making firsts and mosts - Is legendary and the result of good members performing great deeds under the authority of these documents. BUT, we crossed a few lines (years ago) and have been chastised for it. In the 70s through 90s we even crossed state lines and told the out of state reporters that the "Colorado" Civil Air Patrol (Not the Civil Air Patrol in general) performed the rescue/find/save. That didn't go well with Wing Commanders in states that border Colorado. We deserved to have our kiester kicked for that. Our hind ends are still red and well as our faces about those cases. Being that Colorado has 7 adjoining states (can you name them all without looking at a map?)... that is a bunch of peaved off Colonels once upon a time.

We all learn and get humbler as we go.

Many wings have great relationships with their state OEM's, NG  and other component organizations; having no problem in deligating CAP as the "primary lead component" in SAR.  However, as noted by AFRCC, when CAP is deligated as the lead organization, we are closely watched by the Air Force which holds a pretty tight oversight leash.  Even in WV wing where the CAP is considered a state government agency, the Air Force has complete oversight in it's affairs. 

As for wing "parochialism", I think that is a thing of the past.  If anything the last 15 years has taught us, it is we are really 1 CAP.

[RiverAux]

The point, in answer to the earlier question, is that even in those rare situations where CAP is the lead agency, we are only the lead agency because the state has delegated that authority to us.  It is not CAP's god given right.  They could just as easily delegate that authority to the local Rotary club.