Declining Use of Ground Teams

[KatCAP]

All,

With seeing less use of Ground Teams on SARs, especially those involving cadets, how are other squadrons supplementing or changing thier training in order to provide real world experience for thier Ground Teams for both cadets and seniors?  Any thoughs, ideas, comments and suggestions would be more the welcomed.

Please forgive my autocorrect for any misspelling.

- Bernie

[Panzerbjorn]

Provide your ground teams with SARTEC training opportunities.  SARTEC is nationally recognized by EMS agencies and can help expand your capabilities for SAR. Professional SAR agencies know what it means when you're SARTEC qualified.  They don't necessarily know what it means when you're GTM1 qualified.

CERT and POD training will also expand your ground teams' capabilities.

[NC Hokie]

I'm seeing two schools of thought on this in my wing.

For the cadets, ground team training is moving more into the realm of leadership development and skills development using elements of the ranger program from HRMS.  They're not training to become better ground team members (although that is happening), but they're using ground team training to become better leaders and cadets.  The GT qualification is a means to an end, not the end itself.

For the senior members (and the serious cadets), there is a push to become either CERT or SARTECH qualified, which appears to be the qualifications that emergency managers in the state are looking for.  An example of this is that CAP GT members with SARTECH qualifications were immediately deployed on a recent missing person search by the local emergency manager, while those without SARTECH were held in reserve for the following day.

[Spam]

This is a good question, and the answer changes year to year, state to state, so it bears looking at again on occasion.


Arguably, if you train and certify to standards, and exercise regularly (and publicly, on SAREX/DREXs), respond promptly to ALNOTs, execute your mission swiftly ("search is an emergency") and keep the IC happy with frequent and accurate communication and accounting, you will get used. My unit deployed just yesterday on a successful ELT hunt, which admittedly are fewer now than they were in the 80s and 90s (thank you God), so those core missions are still there, firstly. Be proficient and have presence, and you will be used.


Next, I would question the less use of cadets perception. If there is a trend there in your Wing/Region, I'd ask why, and soon. Nondiscrimination in federally funded programs is a serious thing, and while we DO knowingly discriminate when selecting the right people for the task (e.g. run the ORM process) the use of cadets on ground teams for almost all taskings should be a normal thing. I agree with NC Hokie completely on the use of ES as another aspect of cadet leadership development, but as responders I've seen just as many serious cadets gain CERT and NASAR certification as seniors, over the years. One or two of mine have gone on into the USCG to be paid SAR pros, and one cadet went on to win the USCG silver lifesaving medal and has now transferred to USAF (completing PJ school). Hooah. NC Hokie, I like your use of the term "serious"!  I'd extend it to both cadets and seniors though... we have a lot of dilettante adults in our GT training program too.


The next step is to Know Your Customers (State and local, primarily). Before contacting your local EMS and SAR agencies, be honest with yourself and do a self-analysis of your capabilities (suggest using the Resource Typing aids found in the FEMA IS courses... look at your training, your manning, your equipment, all of it). Then, contact and go meet with your potential customers armed with this information and discuss where your unit could augment them in alerts (be sure to keep your Wing Ops shop in the loop). Be very careful about over committing your part time volunteers to joint training schedules (many times during the week, for the paid EMS types), and don't over-sell your abilities. Note down where they want help, and you think you could train to fill their gaps, if only as a part time/surge asset, then go train and equip to it.


Finally, reconsider your mission mix and admit when you lack the technical depth to self-train in areas where your customer is interested in support beyond CERT level. Locally, we have an exercise set up for OCT15 focusing on missing person SAR. Normally, having been through NASAR missing person SAR training, I am very skeptical about the quantity (recurrency/practice), quality, and depth of this training in CAP, having also spoken to many CAP and FD "experts" who think missing person SAR chiefly involves forming up untrained volunteers in line formations and clumping through brush in turnout gear, obscuring sign and scent. However, our Group DOS has done a great job scheduling a local training officer (uniformed Deputy who is the county SAR manager) to provide a full day of training to their standards, with experienced man trackers, with working dogs, etc.  I don't treat this as a check in the box nor a screw around fun day for GES/GTM3*s, but rather as training for GTM2+ and as a step in building a sustainable long term support relationship with our local county EMS units on a mutual aid basis.


I did mention keeping your Wing ES shop in the loop; keep in mind the legalities of support in your state and Wing and consult frequently with Wing, since one of the most demoralizing things possible would be to spend thousands of dollars and man hours to train to support a local/State customer, and to then find that there was no MOU or contract vehicle in place to be reimbursed for expenses.  Gotta work that angle from the start if you want to be a real player, but establishing an initial capability and an ops and training plan that is negotiated and realistic, coupled with a capital improvement and logistics road map is how some of the (non CAP) big volunteer SAR organizations keep a stable funding stream coming in to enable them to procure and replace the expensive SAR gear and vehicles. It all depends on where and how far you and your fellow CAP members want to go.


V/R
Spam

[THRAWN]

This is a good question, and the answer changes year to year, state to state, so it bears looking at again on occasion.


Arguably, if you train and certify to standards, and exercise regularly (and publicly, on SAREX/DREXs), respond promptly to ALNOTs, execute your mission swiftly ("search is an emergency") and keep the IC happy with frequent and accurate communication and accounting, you will get used. My unit deployed just yesterday on a successful ELT hunt, which admittedly are fewer now than they were in the 80s and 90s (thank you God), so those core missions are still there, firstly. Be proficient and have presence, and you will be used.


Next, I would question the less use of cadets perception. If there is a trend there in your Wing/Region, I'd ask why, and soon. Nondiscrimination in federally funded programs is a serious thing, and while we DO knowingly discriminate when selecting the right people for the task (e.g. run the ORM process) the use of cadets on ground teams for almost all taskings should be a normal thing. I agree with NC Hokie completely on the use of ES as another aspect of cadet leadership development, but as responders I've seen just as many serious cadets gain CERT and NASAR certification as seniors, over the years. One or two of mine have gone on into the USCG to be paid SAR pros, and one cadet went on to win the USCG silver lifesaving medal and has now transferred to USAF (completing PJ school). Hooah. NC Hokie, I like your use of the term "serious"!  I'd extend it to both cadets and seniors though... we have a lot of dilettante adults in our GT training program too.


The next step is to Know Your Customers (State and local, primarily). Before contacting your local EMS and SAR agencies, be honest with yourself and do a self-analysis of your capabilities (suggest using the Resource Typing aids found in the FEMA IS courses... look at your training, your manning, your equipment, all of it). Then, contact and go meet with your potential customers armed with this information and discuss where your unit could augment them in alerts (be sure to keep your Wing Ops shop in the loop). Be very careful about over committing your part time volunteers to joint training schedules (many times during the week, for the paid EMS types), and don't over-sell your abilities. Note down where they want help, and you think you could train to fill their gaps, if only as a part time/surge asset, then go train and equip to it.


Finally, reconsider your mission mix and admit when you lack the technical depth to self-train in areas where your customer is interested in support beyond CERT level. Locally, we have an exercise set up for OCT15 focusing on missing person SAR. Normally, having been through NASAR missing person SAR training, I am very skeptical about the quantity (recurrency/practice), quality, and depth of this training in CAP, having also spoken to many CAP and FD "experts" who think missing person SAR chiefly involves forming up untrained volunteers in line formations and clumping through brush in turnout gear, obscuring sign and scent. However, our Group DOS has done a great job scheduling a local training officer (uniformed Deputy who is the county SAR manager) to provide a full day of training to their standards, with experienced man trackers, with working dogs, etc.  I don't treat this as a check in the box nor a screw around fun day for GES/GTM3*s, but rather as training for GTM2+ and as a step in building a sustainable long term support relationship with our local county EMS units on a mutual aid basis.


I did mention keeping your Wing ES shop in the loop; keep in mind the legalities of support in your state and Wing and consult frequently with Wing, since one of the most demoralizing things possible would be to spend thousands of dollars and man hours to train to support a local/State customer, and to then find that there was no MOU or contract vehicle in place to be reimbursed for expenses.  Gotta work that angle from the start if you want to be a real player, but establishing an initial capability and an ops and training plan that is negotiated and realistic, coupled with a capital improvement and logistics road map is how some of the (non CAP) big volunteer SAR organizations keep a stable funding stream coming in to enable them to procure and replace the expensive SAR gear and vehicles. It all depends on where and how far you and your fellow CAP members want to go.


V/R
Spam

Beat me to it. You and I are in 99% agreement on this topic. Glad to see that it's not just an issue in one wing...although not really "glad"...

[TheSkyHornet]

Love Spam's post. Covered virtually every thought I had and then some.

It's really hard in our area to get ground teams to be used even locally. Local and state agencies have taken over the SAR role, and our area isn't really a place where people go missing on the ground for prolonged periods of time unless they intentionally ran off or were kidnapped (unfortunately). It's just not an overly sparse area, and law enforcement seem to prefer that they handle those situations, even though many CAP personnel are adequately trained and equipped. Maybe they feel it's a liability. Dunno really.

I'm not an expert in ground teams, nor am I qualified. But I do see a deterrent in our Wing to even bother getting ground team qualified at some squadrons because they feel that they don't have a purpose anymore. Even squadrons that love to do ground team training don't feel that they're going to ever get called and don't have that "be ready" mentality. They've turned ground SAR into a hobby rather than a preparedness effort.

Makes a lot of people in CAP feel unappreciated at times, and this is something that constantly comes up in informal conversations.

Spam could be on to something

[RiverAux]

Provide your ground teams with SARTEC training opportunities.  SARTEC is nationally recognized by EMS agencies and can help expand your capabilities for SAR. Professional SAR agencies know what it means when you're SARTEC qualified.  They don't necessarily know what it means when you're GTM1 qualified.

Why in the world waste time paying to be tested for qualifications that are only measurably different than ours in regards to activities that we're not going to be allowed to perform anyway? 

CAP is not going to be ground team support to "professional SAR agencies".  We're going to be helping the county sheriff or possibly the local police, most all of whom are not going to know any more about NASAR than they are about CAP.  And even if they have heard of SARTECH it only takes a few minutes to show them CAP's GT training materials and to explain that we can do anything that a SARTECH can do except high angle stuff.

There are a few states that have enough sheriff-based SAR teams that it is unlikely that CAP ground teams are going to be asked to participate.  But those are the exceptions.  I'd say that in most states CAP has more trained ground SAR personnel than all the county SAR teams available combined. 

The best thing that can be done to increase use of ground teams is to develop excellent local relationships with your sheriff and those in surrounding counties (depending on the presence of other CAP units there).  Don't overpromise anything. 

[The Infamous Meerkat]

In our squadron we've been working diligently to reinvent the wheel by reforming our ground team to be a multi-squadron group with it's own training classifications and standards. We use the CAP certification materials but have also added in some physical training and other references from other SAR groups (BCSARA, NASAR and MRA to name a few) so that we would be useful to our county sheriff's in a misper search. Our main issues recently have been:

1. A train of thought at the wing and region level that ground teams should train to be effective, but have no reasonable expectation of ever being called out for an operational mission.
2. Training for Ground SAR should be mostly used as a leadership tool (need I remind anyone that Cadets must reach the age of majority before being able to attain 'leader' status in GT?)
3. Cadet Members pose a significant liability on search missions because mom and dad will sue. (I agree to the possibility, but not the idea that it should cause discrimination. This is not the first, or I'm sure the last time the CAP lawyers have dealt with such an issue.)
4. That critical relationships at the state level have not been kept in good repair by the Wing resulting in what I believe may be retaliatory refusals by those agencies to call CAP For assistance. (Wing will not authorize any contact with state or federal agencies by personnel other than the Commander, CV, or Director of ES of the Wing. Reasonable, if those people did not live at the far corners of the state from the state's capitol. Our squadron and several experienced long time members are here and willing, and are occasionally requested to work with the state agencies,  but the do not contact order stands. We seemingly have to violate orders to talk to base personnel for the base where our squadron resides...)
5. County SAR members here are few and far between, so much the local IMSARU handles a great deal of general search calls. I would be hard pressed to find an IC willing to devote CAP resources to this, and the IC would likely come from a far corner of the state. IC's  in our area have been 'disenfranchised' in that they hold the cert, but have not been used in 5 years or more. IC'S are unwilling to take responsibility for ground units because they believe that it is not CAP'S arena because it doesn't have a propeller...
6. The Wing is poor, it's a fact here. They somehow manage to pull funding for planes out of thin air, but we can't even get the communications money promised to us by National for Constant Watch because our leadership isn't looking out for their subordinates. We can't get funding because of no information being passed down to us, or because it has already been given to an aircraft only exercise or an exercise that is primarily built for planes. I am however, consistently encouraged to pay for it myself if I'd like to do ground team work on their mission numbers... which I have done.

It's not that I don't understand what CAP does, I get that the planes are the main reason for this group to exist. Our leadership however, is not considering that a county sheriff can't call us when they don't know we exist and can't get speedy information from an aircraft if they do get one without a comm/ground team (geography makes it difficult here to get quick comms around the mountains, and unsafe too.).. Ground teams should be the first out to coordinate with the sheriff's offices and provide them real time info from the air, so it may be of some benefit to the 'real searchers'... there is plenty we can be doing, but our leadership crew seems to be more content talking about how we 'serve our communities' while they sit next to a silent telephone twiddling their thumbs. They wait for a call that hardly ever comes because they don't market us to the potential customers... we are a primary group in that state emergency ops plan for SAR, but no one ever calls for anything but ELT activations...

Part of me says to join aircrew, but all of the pilots select each other to be a part of their aircrew, so I know I'll never be used there either. I think I'd just rather move to the local MRA team that actually does SAR on a semi weekly basis.

[LTC Don]

Some very good, and some not so very good comments in this thread.

Ground team usage is declining.  And will continue to decline.

How to correct or reduce the decline?

First and foremost, is to take a look at our reason for existence in the first place:  Federal Law.

10 USC, 9443
(a) Use of Federally Provided Resources.—In its status as a federally chartered nonprofit corporation, the Civil Air Patrol may use equipment, supplies, and other resources, including aircraft, motor vehicles, computers, and communications equipment, provided to the Civil Air Patrol by a department or agency of the Federal Government or acquired by or for the Civil Air Patrol with appropriated funds (or with funds of the Civil Air Patrol, but reimbursed from appropriated funds)—
(1)   to provide assistance requested by State or local governmental authorities to perform disaster relief missions and activities, other emergency missions and activities, and nonemergency missions and activities; and

(2)   to fulfill its other purposes set forth in section 40302 of title 36.

36 USC, 40302
The purposes of the corporation are as follows:

(1) To provide an organization to— 
(A) encourage and aid citizens of the United States in contributing their efforts, services, and resources in developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy; and 

(B) encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare. 

(2) To provide aviation education and training especially to its senior and cadet members. 

(3) To encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities. 

(4) To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies.

(5) To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its noncombat programs and missions.


Unlike the Pirate Code, the above are not mere suggestions or guidelines.  Whatever you may have thought you knew about CAP, was probably wrong based on very old Kool-Aid.

Note that SAR is inferred whereas Disaster Relief is specified by name.

If you have never bothered to read our Constitution and Bylaws.  Please do so.  You will find that the above Laws are essentially parroted.

Unfortunately, the reality is this:
CAP was abused for so long, running around the countryside looking for false-alarm ELTs, the organization deluded itself into thinking it was actually doing SAR work. During the 70's, all the way into the '90's, while the Federal Government was creating FEMA, ICS, and NASAR (and other organizations) was coming up with nationally published (and accepted) standards of various sorts, CAP was marching merrily along with AFRCC, snuffing out wayward ELTs all across the heartland.  Bear in mind, back then, CAP leadership was largely Air Force.  I think ultimately, that became a liability since much of the CAP ES culture had no actual managers with public safety experience.

Since that time, will all the various transition that has occurred as the Air Force stepped back, nationally, CAP has been adrift in terms of the 'ground' portion of our ES mission.  DR from a national perspective is nonexistent, even though this is the 'ES' mission specified in the law.
The previous edition of 60-3 had a chapter discussing DR.  In the latest version, it and most mention of anything to do with DR has been removed.  And that was 6 years ago. Ground related ES is pretty much a shambles right now. <Insert your favorite 'Ship adrift in the night' type cliché here>

SAR is an inferred, but very important mission, with regards to our 'identity', even though DR is the mission specified by name. If you want to move into the 'real' SAR field, you must establish relationships with your local SAR organizations and TRAIN to THEIR STANDARDS.  FORGET CAP GROUND TEAM KOOL-AID. If your local SAR team recognizes NASAR SARTECH, then end of discussion.  You and your folks will have to train to that standard. If it's some other standard, so be it.  It would be the rare instance where there is no missing person SAR resource locally, but it's possible.  In that instance, CAP can have a dramatic impact. BUT - It must be realized that our training curriculum is missing aircraft based, not missing person based.  So any training standard must be evaluated closely for relevance, and liability.

IF you don't necessarily want to deal with the SAR hassles.  And there are a lot of reasons not to, you can specialize in DR type programs and be content that the Federal Mandate(s) above are met. There are plenty of canned programs that can be engaged such as ICS, POD, CERT, SkyWarn, and one that would be great for our health care folks, Mass Prophylaxis (also known as Point of Dispensing, another type of POD), typically run through the state and local Public Health departments.

Generally, all it takes is an introduction to the local Emergency Management coordinator/manager. <Which is also a requirement specified in 60-3 and 20-1.

One of the issues, previously mentioned, but is also stated in 60-3, is that squadrons should not 'over-sell' themselves to their local government entity.  And that is correct, but no supporting advice is offered either.  True, unit's should not oversell themselves.  What the local unit should sell is themselves as a gateway to the larger resource, the Wing, and then Region.  Make it clear, and the local EM guy will understand this since there job is to know local resources, is that the local unit's resources will be used up quickly.  Once that happens, additional resources will have to come from the larger pool, the wing. This is definitely the case with something like POD (both kinds), which are very labor-intensive and require lots of people.


So, apparently, the question of ground team usage and decline is an obvious one, the work to correct it is substantial.

The Air Force has no interest in CAP's ground mission.  Big Blue is all about the aviation component.  BUT -- Federal Law is still there so what does that mean?

If there is a disaster, and we deploy x number of aircraft and aircrews, but our non-aviation members sit home even though it is obvious a substantial ground response was needed, did we fulfill the requirements of the law stated above?  In my estimation, we failed. CAP must make a best-effort to deploy all available resources when needed, not just one component. That means all of the various training, relationship, and leadership infrastructure must be in place to be successful in Emergency Services.

[KatCAP]

Some very good, and some not so very good comments in this thread.

Ground team usage is declining.  And will continue to decline.

How to correct or reduce the decline?

First and foremost, is to take a look at our reason for existence in the first place:  Federal Law.

10 USC, 9443
(a) Use of Federally Provided Resources.—In its status as a federally chartered nonprofit corporation, the Civil Air Patrol may use equipment, supplies, and other resources, including aircraft, motor vehicles, computers, and communications equipment, provided to the Civil Air Patrol by a department or agency of the Federal Government or acquired by or for the Civil Air Patrol with appropriated funds (or with funds of the Civil Air Patrol, but reimbursed from appropriated funds)—
(1)   to provide assistance requested by State or local governmental authorities to perform disaster relief missions and activities, other emergency missions and activities, and nonemergency missions and activities; and

(2)   to fulfill its other purposes set forth in section 40302 of title 36.

36 USC, 40302
The purposes of the corporation are as follows:

(1) To provide an organization to— 
(A) encourage and aid citizens of the United States in contributing their efforts, services, and resources in developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy; and 

(B) encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare. 

(2) To provide aviation education and training especially to its senior and cadet members. 

(3) To encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities. 

(4) To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies.

(5) To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its noncombat programs and missions.


Unlike the Pirate Code, the above are not mere suggestions or guidelines.  Whatever you may have thought you knew about CAP, was probably wrong based on very old Kool-Aid.

Note that SAR is inferred whereas Disaster Relief is specified by name.

If you have never bothered to read our Constitution and Bylaws.  Please do so.  You will find that the above Laws are essentially parroted.

Unfortunately, the reality is this:
CAP was abused for so long, running around the countryside looking for false-alarm ELTs, the organization deluded itself into thinking it was actually doing SAR work. During the 70's, all the way into the '90's, while the Federal Government was creating FEMA, ICS, and NASAR (and other organizations) was coming up with nationally published (and accepted) standards of various sorts, CAP was marching merrily along with AFRCC, snuffing out wayward ELTs all across the heartland.  Bear in mind, back then, CAP leadership was largely Air Force.  I think ultimately, that became a liability since much of the CAP ES culture had no actual managers with public safety experience.

Since that time, will all the various transition that has occurred as the Air Force stepped back, nationally, CAP has been adrift in terms of the 'ground' portion of our ES mission.  DR from a national perspective is nonexistent, even though this is the 'ES' mission specified in the law.
The previous edition of 60-3 had a chapter discussing DR.  In the latest version, it and most mention of anything to do with DR has been removed.  And that was 6 years ago. Ground related ES is pretty much a shambles right now. <Insert your favorite 'Ship adrift in the night' type cliché here>

SAR is an inferred, but very important mission, with regards to our 'identity', even though DR is the mission specified by name. If you want to move into the 'real' SAR field, you must establish relationships with your local SAR organizations and TRAIN to THEIR STANDARDS.  FORGET CAP GROUND TEAM KOOL-AID. If your local SAR team recognizes NASAR SARTECH, then end of discussion.  You and your folks will have to train to that standard. If it's some other standard, so be it.  It would be the rare instance where there is no missing person SAR resource locally, but it's possible.  In that instance, CAP can have a dramatic impact. BUT - It must be realized that our training curriculum is missing aircraft based, not missing person based.  So any training standard must be evaluated closely for relevance, and liability.

IF you don't necessarily want to deal with the SAR hassles.  And there are a lot of reasons not to, you can specialize in DR type programs and be content that the Federal Mandate(s) above are met. There are plenty of canned programs that can be engaged such as ICS, POD, CERT, SkyWarn, and one that would be great for our health care folks, Mass Prophylaxis (also known as Point of Dispensing, another type of POD), typically run through the state and local Public Health departments.

Generally, all it takes is an introduction to the local Emergency Management coordinator/manager. <Which is also a requirement specified in 60-3 and 20-1.

One of the issues, previously mentioned, but is also stated in 60-3, is that squadrons should not 'over-sell' themselves to their local government entity.  And that is correct, but no supporting advice is offered either.  True, unit's should not oversell themselves.  What the local unit should sell is themselves as a gateway to the larger resource, the Wing, and then Region.  Make it clear, and the local EM guy will understand this since there job is to know local resources, is that the local unit's resources will be used up quickly.  Once that happens, additional resources will have to come from the larger pool, the wing. This is definitely the case with something like POD (both kinds), which are very labor-intensive and require lots of people.


So, apparently, the question of ground team usage and decline is an obvious one, the work to correct it is substantial.

The Air Force has no interest in CAP's ground mission.  Big Blue is all about the aviation component.  BUT -- Federal Law is still there so what does that mean?

If there is a disaster, and we deploy x number of aircraft and aircrews, but our non-aviation members sit home even though it is obvious a substantial ground response was needed, did we fulfill the requirements of the law stated above?  In my estimation, we failed. CAP must make a best-effort to deploy all available resources when needed, not just one component. That means all of the various training, relationship, and leadership infrastructure must be in place to be successful in Emergency Services.

Sir,
That is some great information.  Miscommunication and misunderstanding of our original mission has been lost over the years and we need to get back to the core.  Saying that we will loose some people to these events but if they do leave and go off to other organizations so they can be full SAR I hope and encourage them to remain in CAP as thier skills and new found education would be greatly appreciated and needed.

Another asspect would be to work with a "Ranger" type organization via the local city, county and state.  There's nothing in the regs (that I am aware of) that prevents members (including cadets) from belonging to more then one organization.  It would increase the wealth of knowledge of members in both organizations.

[LTC Don]

Sir, That is some great information.  Miscommunication and misunderstanding of our original mission has been lost over the years and we need to get back to the core.  Saying that we will loose some people to these events but if they do leave and go off to other organizations so they can be full SAR I hope and encourage them to remain in CAP as thier skills and new found education would be greatly appreciated and needed.

Another asspect would be to work with a "Ranger" type organization via the local city, county and state.  There's nothing in the regs (that I am aware of) that prevents members (including cadets) from belonging to more then one organization.  It would increase the wealth of knowledge of members in both organizations.

Yes, you are correct that there are no restrictions on how many organizations a member can belong to.  But, there are some issues there to be wary of.

It is not uncommon for volunteers to belong to multiple agencies.  Unfortunately, this contributes to a concept known as 'Volunteer Shrinkage'.  Basically, people who volunteer for multiple organizations ultimately cause more bad than good when the need comes because you can only work for one boss.  If you have a member who volunteers for the Red Cross, CAP, and say, Salvation Army, and there is an event that requires the response of all three organizations, then the member can only respond with one.  This means two volunteers are unaccounted for now between two different organizations. 

Volunteer shrinkage is a very common issue in many small communities.  In routine instances, it doesn't always cause issues, but for larger events, it can be a major problem because of divided loyalties.

A perfect example would be a CAP member who is a communications operator, but who is also a member of the local ARES group.  If there is a need for both CAP and ARES deployments, who does the member go with?  Who gets left short-staffed as a result?

[Larry Mangum]

There are a lot of good ides on this thread as to why Ground Teams, especially those involving cadets are not used more. The one that has been overlooked though is that in many states, there are laws or policies that prohibit anyone under the age of 18 (in some states the age is 16)  from being used during a search.   In CAP the majority of the ground teams are composed of cadets and a couple of seniors with the average cadet age being 16 or under.

Having said that however, it has been my observation over the almost twenty years I have been in CAP, that the biggest reason that CAP is not utilized is the failure of the wings, groups and squadrons to either introduce themselves to local authorities or a failure to participate in their training exercises.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

That failure is largely at play here, some of our counties have new people in office but most of our leadership is content to sit back and say, 'we've done the legwork six years ago, now wait for the call'. Those people are never going to call us because I'm sure it was the last thing on the previous sheriff's mind when passing the job over, ' Oh, make sure you call those CAP guys if you ever need anything, they did a presentation here once".

They seem to have little interest in the continuous marketing that we need to stay relevant. That, or they don't even have the time to do the job, which can cause a similar effect.  Even in recruiting we've been seeing the effects of this problem and it doesn't spell out good things for us. Lt Col. Don brings up a very good point that reading the constitution and bylaws is important to understanding our mission. Unfortunately Sir, I believe it's become more than kool-aid, it has become doctrine. We use it to drum up recruits, create a large amount of activities, have published training for it, and have deployed far more SAR missions than we have disaster missions. SAR is something we do, whether it's in the laws or not.The AFRCC may have no concern for whether or not we have folks running around the countryside, but they sure funded us with vehicles, radios, Lpers, and other gear that are SAR oriented, all while we haven't done anything to prepare for our lawful disaster missions. It's very curious to me that CAP has become so confused about its purpose, and that the Air Force supports the delusion. I think at this point keeping ourselves relevant to our communities is more important than restrictions on our activities out of principle. We have a role to play in SAR, why not take it by the reigns and do our best?

That or we need to put the train on the tracks, reorient NESA to teach only field comments and urban disaster SAR, and start training on our 'real mission'. I didn't come here purely for ES, but this is definitely something that has me wanting to go elsewhere. The Lack of concern for keeping us relevant to the needs of the 21st century is very distressing to me, because it shows me a trend that could possibly put us out of business. That not what I want for CAP,  regardless of what our ES mission will look like in the future.

[TheSkyHornet]

As many before have suggested, you can't perform a service time and time again, and then just stop and wait around for someone to call. You still need to advocate and promote yourself, or people will cast you aside over time.

Most officials have the county and local levels have no clue about CAP, and that's not just the fault of FEMA, or the Governor; it's the fault of CAP (at any level) for not getting out there and making the connections and building the relationships, and on top of that, keeping those relationships going rather than idle as an expectation.

I think 1st Lt Brizzi makes an excellent point here in his common that CAP has become confused about its purpose. Sure, we all know the missions of CAP. We have the training programs. But some of the management of CAP programs, including promotion, aren't well organized these days. I've said it before that I don't feel CAP has kept up with the 21st Century, and that comes from the top with the support of leadership all the way down to self-governing squadrons.

[Paul_AK]

So, if our Ground Teams are declining, has anyone had any success in some form of cross specialization or teaming with other organizations? We have room for CERT on our 101s, has anyone teamed with Red Cross to augment or even act as their Disaster Action Team (shelter placement and management, food distribution...)? We have a national level MOU but there's always room to play at the local level. Or successfully marketed at the local level and now works and trains closely with other search groups whether it be the fire department, Explorer SAR, or the USCG Aux? Granted each state has it's own needs and obstacles. Even internally, engagement with membership and leadership whose organizational goals or career goals may not include ground teams (i.e., those who only want to fly).

[The Infamous Meerkat]

We have been trying for months to set up a ground team that is separate from the squadron activities but pulls resources and members from the two squadrons in neighboring counties. The purpose is to train to a standard that can be interoperable with the local Mountain Rescue team, so that we may be able to break into their mission callouts as a supporting agency.

Recently we were emailed a document by the Director of ES, a former Wing Commander, that states no Wing level ground teams shall exist without the oversight of the Wing Commander, while squadron level ES programs will be left to the oversight of the Squadron commander. I find it funny that this directive is made, among other very specific directives, that is aimed at the only group that is not keeping the status quo. Apparently, us trying to gain more competence is something the Wing needs to keep a leash on, or that's how it feels...

We are also now forbidden from using anyone less than the age of sixteen on ground teams. This document will be a Wing level OI soon.

So, we tried to become more interoperable with a MRA team like you suggested, and we got a royal smack down for it... we are now forbidden from doing anything because of the pieces and parts that are now disallowed.

[LTC Don]

We have been trying for months to set up a ground team that is separate from the squadron activities but pulls resources and members from the two squadrons in neighboring counties. The purpose is to train to a standard that can be interoperable with the local Mountain Rescue team, so that we may be able to break into their mission callouts as a supporting agency.

Recently we were emailed a document by the Director of ES, a former Wing Commander, that states no Wing level ground teams shall exist without the oversight of the Wing Commander, while squadron level ES programs will be left to the oversight of the Squadron commander. I find it funny that this directive is made, among other very specific directives, that is aimed at the only group that is not keeping the status quo. Apparently, us trying to gain more competence is something the Wing needs to keep a leash on, or that's how it feels...

We are also now forbidden from using anyone less than the age of sixteen on ground teams. This document will be a Wing level OI soon.

So, we tried to become more interoperable with a MRA team like you suggested, and we got a royal smack down for it... we are now forbidden from doing anything because of the pieces and parts that are now disallowed.

You didn't say you were forbidden, just that any organized ES program has to be with Wing oversight.  I don't know what your wing structure is, but if your wing doesn't use groups, I could see where Wing ES might want some involvement.

If the framework for your efforts have not been documented, then this would be the time to do so, with due regard that the program is being conducted In Accordance With (IAW) CAPR 60-3 (and be sure to document as such).  Then, a formal briefing to the Wg CC and DOS outlining the program.  I should think that a well-presented formal plan would be signed off on as long as due regard for ORM and Safety is planned accordingly.

Mountain rescue isn't something to be taken lightly, and often has to deal with very cold, and deadly weather; not to mention the sudden stops. 

In any case.  It sounds like an interesting program.  Good luck.

[Larry Mangum]

There are several issues that have to be addressed before you can integrate CAP resources (Ground Teams, Aircraft, etc...) into the efforts of another search organization.

1. CAPR 60-3 requires that all CAP assets must remain under the control of a CAP IC. So if you are integrating a Ground Team for example into the call out for the Mountain Rescue Team, how will that work.
2. In order to get Air Force insurance coverage, the NOC needs to be contacted and they will contact AFRCC to get the mission approved.
3. If AFAM approval is not requested, you still need to contact the NOC and have them approve the mission as a Corporate mission.

I know someone will jump on the thread and state that a MOU will solve all of these issues, however that is rarely the case. First of all, an MOU, are not that easy to get approved as they have to be approved not only by the legal team of the organization that you want to help but also by the Wing Legal Team, NHQ, and in most cases CAP/USAF and or AFRCC. Secondly MOU's are primarily used to define what services each party will provide and in CAP's case, how CAP's services will be paid for.

[LTC Don]

There are several issues that have to be addressed before you can integrate CAP resources (Ground Teams, Aircraft, etc...) into the efforts of another search organization.

1. CAPR 60-3 requires that all CAP assets must remain under the control of a CAP IC. So if you are integrating a Ground Team for example into the call out for the Mountain Rescue Team, how will that work.
2. In order to get Air Force insurance coverage, the NOC needs to be contacted and they will contact AFRCC to get the mission approved.
3. If AFAM approval is not requested, you still need to contact the NOC and have them approve the mission as a Corporate mission.

I know someone will jump on the thread and state that a MOU will solve all of these issues, however that is rarely the case. First of all, an MOU, are not that easy to get approved as they have to be approved not only by the legal team of the organization that you want to help but also by the Wing Legal Team, NHQ, and in most cases CAP/USAF and or AFRCC. Secondly MOU's are primarily used to define what services each party will provide and in CAP's case, how CAP's services will be paid for.

All good points.  If the MRT is a private not-for-profit, much like CAP, and operates upon request of the local government entity, then CAP would have to work their side (MOU, etc.) with the local government entity, not the MRT, although CAP, once activated through the proper channels, could then work in partnership with the MRT as a force multiplier/strike team.

In such circumstances, CAP acts as an assisting agency so the AFAM number would have the characteristic 'A' at the end for an Assist mission. This is just about always the case with missing person SAR.

We here in the flatlands obviously don't have mountains to contend with, but we do have swamps with lots of nasty wildlife.  Having cadets under sixteen does indeed make me uncomfortable, and even with the sixteen year olds, makes me be much more attentive to what they are doing. On a recent missing person search, we were one of several other agencies involved.  We were the only one there with teenagers.

[Fubar]

So, if our Ground Teams are declining, has anyone had any success in some form of cross specialization or teaming with other organizations?

Why not just join the other organizations that meet your desires for ground SAR? I'm not being sarcastic here, as volunteers we need to ensure our time isn't being wasted and that we enjoy what we do. If CAP is preventing you from doing what you enjoy, vote with your feet. I do understand the idea of "fixing" the organization from within, but at some point, especially with CAP, it becomes a losing battle.

I know a few ground team guys who went and got NASAR certified because they hoped it would lead to more business. All it did was lead to more complaining about being prevented by CAP regulations from doing what they've been training to do.

[Paul_AK]

So, if our Ground Teams are declining, has anyone had any success in some form of cross specialization or teaming with other organizations?

Why not just join the other organizations that meet your desires for ground SAR? I'm not being sarcastic here, as volunteers we need to ensure our time isn't being wasted and that we enjoy what we do. If CAP is preventing you from doing what you enjoy, vote with your feet. I do understand the idea of "fixing" the organization from within, but at some point, especially with CAP, it becomes a losing battle.

I know a few ground team guys who went and got NASAR certified because they hoped it would lead to more business. All it did was lead to more complaining about being prevented by CAP regulations from doing what they've been training to do.

I'm not being sarcastic either when I say I enjoy CAP. I've been a member since 1999, achieved C/CAPT, been to NESA, and am working on ESO. The organization has history,  a good framework, good foundations, congressionally mandated, well established programs, and much expertise to call upon for any number of tasks. We get the occasional UDF tasking but no GT stuff recently, but that can change if you showcase yourself. Why wouldn't you want the organization to take center stage, especially your Cadet program? Based on your locale you could have your Cadets teach Land Nav or SAR to the local scouts for their merit badges, you could integrate with any number of organizations to promote health, well-being, and preparedness. Why would I or other members give up all that time and energy instead of trying to bring forward ideas?

No one is talking about some kind of Airborne/Pararescue/Rescue Swimmer level junk to throw in with the GT tasks. We have qualifications for UDF, GT, and CERT on our 101s as well as the 60-3 specifically mentioning that Technical (Rope) Rescue or Mountain Rescue and Urban SAR, are "considered acceptable but still require prior written approval" (CAPR 60-3, 1-31). Why couldn't we integrate with other agencies for better partnerships, easing fiscal constraints, to help foster a better sense of community, and provide the membership (senior and cadet) with a one stop place for opportunities instead of having to go elsewhere (as LTC Don highlighted)? I know all too well the uphill battle to bring about any change, even if those you are battling don't have to do any work at all. If you don't push you will never make change or at least start a dialogue.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

Indeed ^

I didn't come back to this organization for ground SAR, though I am seriously considering dialing back my time commitment to go join the MRA team (as are several others in my squadron). I came back to this organization because it offers a great variety of ways to impact my community and build tomorrow's leaders. I wasn't in CAP long enough to really benefit from it as a Cadet, but it drew me back with the people. I enjoy working with these like-minded, selfless, public servant types that want to give their all to help their communities in a time of need. Unfortunately, no matter how big and well set up this organization is, my Wing seems to be all about restricting operations because "The ORM is too high". I'm very tired of hearing that ridiculous utterance, it is an easy excuse for people in power positions that don't actually understand the concept of ORM.

They are convinced that anything we do is somehow going to come back on them personally and that we are out to violate the regulations to do things that are out of bounds. The Wing approval requirement is aimed solely at our team concept and requires oversight and IC's from literally across the state. Considering that on that side of the state there are almost no qualified ground team members and that they do not consider the use of ground teams when they receive missions, my hopes for being allowed to operate under their "guidance" is very low. Our last SAREVAL had three ground teams that had to be compiled from the far corners of the wing, while all of the staffers came from that local area (The side of the state that doesn't want teenagers on ground teams).

Right now we are not a help to our community and we are lying to the people we try to recruit. It's not just the ground team thing that we get told no on, it's a lot of things. our Wing doesn't like new ideas and improvements to the status quo, so we are not that popular right now. Our Wing doesn't want to take center stage, it seems to want to be the guy sleeping in the back corner of the auditorium. I love this organization, but it isn't fulfilling it's missions in our area. We are sitting and 'waiting for a call' while there are legitimate emergencies going on around us like the fires, missing persons, poor counties needing assistance, etc.

There are several issues that have to be addressed before you can integrate CAP resources (Ground Teams, Aircraft, etc...) into the efforts of another search organization.

1. CAPR 60-3 requires that all CAP assets must remain under the control of a CAP IC. So if you are integrating a Ground Team for example into the call out for the Mountain Rescue Team, how will that work.
2. In order to get Air Force insurance coverage, the NOC needs to be contacted and they will contact AFRCC to get the mission approved.
3. If AFAM approval is not requested, you still need to contact the NOC and have them approve the mission as a Corporate mission.

I know someone will jump on the thread and state that a MOU will solve all of these issues, however that is rarely the case. First of all, an MOU, are not that easy to get approved as they have to be approved not only by the legal team of the organization that you want to help but also by the Wing Legal Team, NHQ, and in most cases CAP/USAF and or AFRCC. Secondly MOU's are primarily used to define what services each party will provide and in CAP's case, how CAP's services will be paid for.

If a county Sheriff were to call for help to our level and an AFAM was not approved, I have no doubt our Wing would just drop it. They would likely also drop it if it didn't have a request for aircraft. As for the IC, that's a minor issue. CAP's IC is subordinate to any agency that calls us, in all actuality they act as an Agency Rep. and serve to relay orders to us. Since we'd be the ones working the incident and the IC would likely be on the phone with the sheriff from across the state, giving the okay for him to task our group. We are never going to be a part of a MRT as a CAP resource, we are equal supporting agencies to the Sheriff.

We have been trying for months to set up a ground team that is separate from the squadron activities but pulls resources and members from the two squadrons in neighboring counties. The purpose is to train to a standard that can be interoperable with the local Mountain Rescue team, so that we may be able to break into their mission callouts as a supporting agency.

Recently we were emailed a document by the Director of ES, a former Wing Commander, that states no Wing level ground teams shall exist without the oversight of the Wing Commander, while squadron level ES programs will be left to the oversight of the Squadron commander. I find it funny that this directive is made, among other very specific directives, that is aimed at the only group that is not keeping the status quo. Apparently, us trying to gain more competence is something the Wing needs to keep a leash on, or that's how it feels...

We are also now forbidden from using anyone less than the age of sixteen on ground teams. This document will be a Wing level OI soon.

So, we tried to become more interoperable with a MRA team like you suggested, and we got a royal smack down for it... we are now forbidden from doing anything because of the pieces and parts that are now disallowed.

You didn't say you were forbidden, just that any organized ES program has to be with Wing oversight.  I don't know what your wing structure is, but if your wing doesn't use groups, I could see where Wing ES might want some involvement.

If the framework for your efforts have not been documented, then this would be the time to do so, with due regard that the program is being conducted In Accordance With (IAW) CAPR 60-3 (and be sure to document as such).  Then, a formal briefing to the Wg CC and DOS outlining the program.  I should think that a well-presented formal plan would be signed off on as long as due regard for ORM and Safety is planned accordingly.

Mountain rescue isn't something to be taken lightly, and often has to deal with very cold, and deadly weather; not to mention the sudden stops. 

In any case.  It sounds like an interesting program.  Good luck.

Our entire program has been well documented and planned out, but the ORM and Safety thing is where they will get us. No matter what we do do document our safety practices and ORM, we will probably be told that "the situation's ORM is too high" from the "Commander's/Incident Commander's perspective". Teenagers are a liability to them, so anything we do with teenagers is inherently unsafe. Never mind that other places in the country have professional teams operating with teenagers, our Cadets that are trained in leadership and professionalism can't be expected to also be smart enough to do SAR with any level of efficiency. CAP does a great disservice to it's Cadets when it says and does things like this.

[arajca]

I will make a point about Technical Rescue and Mountain SAR. The local SAR team trains weekly for several hours. They spend lots of money on buying and replacing equipment. Many pieces have designated 'lifes'. Once the equipment has reached the end of its life, it gets retired. Even if it has never been used. This is in addition to the many hundreds or thousands of dollars each member spends on equipment.

Finding CAP members who are willing to consistently spend that much time of money is problematic, in my experience.

[Paul_AK]

I will make a point about Technical Rescue and Mountain SAR. The local SAR team trains weekly for several hours. They spend lots of money on buying and replacing equipment. Many pieces have designated 'lifes'. Once the equipment has reached the end of its life, it gets retired. Even if it has never been used. This is in addition to the many hundreds or thousands of dollars each member spends on equipment.

Finding CAP members who are willing to consistently spend that much time of money is problematic, in my experience.

This is abundantly true. The way I read the regulation was that it was designed to make allowances for those with previously gained experiences but that it is still possible to get permission. I do know it is possible for a youth SAR organization (I'm referencing the Explorers here) to be trained in at least low angle rope work. They do have age restrictions as well. As you mentioned it is difficult to find the extra time. It would more likely succeed with a Senior Member team where the members don't have the same career progression and classroom requirements as Cadets.

[Brit_in_CAP]

We here in the flatlands obviously don't have mountains to contend with, but we do have swamps with lots of nasty wildlife.  Having cadets under sixteen does indeed make me uncomfortable, and even with the sixteen year olds, makes me be much more attentive to what they are doing. On a recent missing person search, we were one of several other agencies involved.  We were the only one there with teenagers.

My personal biggest worry with ES and the cadet program: train by all means with cadets - great fun for all - but you have to look at the maturity of the cadet before you say agree to their involvement in a mission, and take into account the mission.   

[sardak]

Here is an independent SAR team (not Explorers, Scouts or any other youth organization) in Colorado, open only to students in the 9th to 12th grades, that has been around since 1957. It used to be an Associate Member of the Mountain Rescue Association but dropped its membership. It is however, still requested for mutual aid by other MRA teams, as well as non-MRA teams.  http://www.arapahoerescue.org/recruiting

Mike

[Paul_AK]

Here is an independent SAR team (not Explorers, Scouts or any other youth organization) in Colorado, open only to students in the 9th to 12th grades, that has been around since 1957. It used to be an Associate Member of the Mountain Rescue Association but dropped its membership. It is however, still requested for mutual aid by other MRA teams, as well as non-MRA teams.  http://www.arapahoerescue.org/recruiting

Mike

Good information. I've been hunting through Google looking for SAR programs to compare with but somehow missed this. Thanks for posting.

[LTC Don]

Finding CAP members who are willing to consistently spend that much time of money is problematic, in my experience.

Quite true, and about any qualification, pilots included.

To develop a cadre of any group, and mold them into a working team is tough.  As for a MRT type team, very tough because you have to have enough people to field a team, get them trained up and credentialed, then have them 'pay their dues' to be accepted by their peers in the other teams.

As with any volunteer organization, it's a numbers game.  Let's say you want to field a 10-person team anytime a tasking arrives.  To get those numbers, then you will need at least twenty people, all credentialed to pull from. Twenty-five is a more realistic number. To be a dedicated team, you will probably not have them meet regularly with the full squadron, but periodically so that they can concentrate on their own training.

Very tough indeed.   And expensive in terms of equipment and credentials. Now, with some fundraising, it should be possible for the squadron to pay for the training.  There is no rule that says members must pay for their own training/credentials.  This might help with recruiting and serve as a form of contract as well.

Is it worthwhile.  IF there is a definite need to fill a void in the local public safety community, absolutely.

Anytime your outfit is on some emergency manager's speed dial -- well then well done!

[Jaison009]

We have been in Arkansas regularly. Also, our LEOs are decently aware of SAR and know what a team member can do.

Provide your ground teams with SARTEC training opportunities.  SARTEC is nationally recognized by EMS agencies and can help expand your capabilities for SAR. Professional SAR agencies know what it means when you're SARTEC qualified.  They don't necessarily know what it means when you're GTM1 qualified.

Why in the world waste time paying to be tested for qualifications that are only measurably different than ours in regards to activities that we're not going to be allowed to perform anyway? 

CAP is not going to be ground team support to "professional SAR agencies".  We're going to be helping the county sheriff or possibly the local police, most all of whom are not going to know any more about NASAR than they are about CAP.  And even if they have heard of SARTECH it only takes a few minutes to show them CAP's GT training materials and to explain that we can do anything that a SARTECH can do except high angle stuff.

There are a few states that have enough sheriff-based SAR teams that it is unlikely that CAP ground teams are going to be asked to participate.  But those are the exceptions.  I'd say that in most states CAP has more trained ground SAR personnel than all the county SAR teams available combined. 

The best thing that can be done to increase use of ground teams is to develop excellent local relationships with your sheriff and those in surrounding counties (depending on the presence of other CAP units there).  Don't overpromise anything.

[Jaison009]

I believe in North Carolina CAP has become a major player in points of distribution (PODS) even being written into many EOPs. Maybe someone from there can talk as to their success. As to ARC, I serve as a Disaster Program Manager and neither CAP nor ARC can figure out what to do together. This is something I am trying to work on in my area.

So, if our Ground Teams are declining, has anyone had any success in some form of cross specialization or teaming with other organizations? We have room for CERT on our 101s, has anyone teamed with Red Cross to augment or even act as their Disaster Action Team (shelter placement and management, food distribution...)? We have a national level MOU but there's always room to play at the local level. Or successfully marketed at the local level and now works and trains closely with other search groups whether it be the fire department, Explorer SAR, or the USCG Aux? Granted each state has it's own needs and obstacles. Even internally, engagement with membership and leadership whose organizational goals or career goals may not include ground teams (i.e., those who only want to fly).

[Jaison009]

One of our best SAR teams in AR was ESAR-Explorer Search and Rescue. They had high school aged venture scouts trained from SARTECH III to Is, First Responder to EMTs. They had their own uniforms, equipment, communications, and were squared away. Many of them went onto military, law enforcement, fire, EMS, and emergency management careers. This was their old page http://esar.org/ and they were well respected among SAR and law enforcement agencies.

As a cadet in Alaska we worked alongside the Alaska State Police Wilderness SAR Team, US Army high altitude rescue team, USCG, VFDs, and anyone who would play with us.

There is also a village called Aniak where much of the FD is made up of high school aged members called "Dragon Slayers" http://www.howyouthlearn.org/dragon_slayers_WKCD.html

quote author=LTC Don link=topic=20345.msg373864#msg373864 date=1444071986]

There are several issues that have to be addressed before you can integrate CAP resources (Ground Teams, Aircraft, etc...) into the efforts of another search organization.

1. CAPR 60-3 requires that all CAP assets must remain under the control of a CAP IC. So if you are integrating a Ground Team for example into the call out for the Mountain Rescue Team, how will that work.
2. In order to get Air Force insurance coverage, the NOC needs to be contacted and they will contact AFRCC to get the mission approved.
3. If AFAM approval is not requested, you still need to contact the NOC and have them approve the mission as a Corporate mission.

I know someone will jump on the thread and state that a MOU will solve all of these issues, however that is rarely the case. First of all, an MOU, are not that easy to get approved as they have to be approved not only by the legal team of the organization that you want to help but also by the Wing Legal Team, NHQ, and in most cases CAP/USAF and or AFRCC. Secondly MOU's are primarily used to define what services each party will provide and in CAP's case, how CAP's services will be paid for.

All good points.  If the MRT is a private not-for-profit, much like CAP, and operates upon request of the local government entity, then CAP would have to work their side (MOU, etc.) with the local government entity, not the MRT, although CAP, once activated through the proper channels, could then work in partnership with the MRT as a force multiplier/strike team.

In such circumstances, CAP acts as an assisting agency so the AFAM number would have the characteristic 'A' at the end for an Assist mission. This is just about always the case with missing person SAR.

We here in the flatlands obviously don't have mountains to contend with, but we do have swamps with lots of nasty wildlife.  Having cadets under sixteen does indeed make me uncomfortable, and even with the sixteen year olds, makes me be much more attentive to what they are doing. On a recent missing person search, we were one of several other agencies involved.  We were the only one there with teenagers.
[/quote]

[JayCraswell]

I get this question a lot.  My memory on this is a little vague but at one time (Still?) Senior members had to give a public presentation about Civil Air Patrol to promote.  When my time came up (Be sure your chain of command knows what your up to) I contacted the local Police and asked about giving a "dog and pony" show to the Chief (Or anyone willing to listen for 10 or 15 minutes)   I'm not sure they knew who CAP was but the reception was a room full of people.   The points that make the most impact are very simple.  And by the way there is nothing in the regs (Then anyway) that says you can't bring another senior member to do part of the presentation for credit.

We have standards of training so bring some Ground team member handbooks to give them *And let them keep them - standardized training is huge.   

1) Explain that we will only show up to help if they request us.   We will   n e v e r   show up uninvited.   

2) Tell them that when they no longer wish or need help or have some issue we are gone.   *Come when you call and leave when you give the word.

3) The way to call for help (In my state) is to call the same number used to request help from other Police Departments or Fire Rescue *The State Duty Officer.  If thats not the plan follow your states procedure.   Make it easy.

4) Tell them that if we somehow manage to hurt ourselves we are "insured" - they won't be held accountable if someone steps in a chuck hole or walks off a cliff.

5) The "cost" of having us help them is zero.  I know there are some circumstances where Aviation fuel would be charged but not on an actual mission.   *Someone comment if they can think of a circumstance where that would be wrong.

6) You can bring up searching for missing persons where one of the "Civilian Helpers" turned out to be the person who made the person go "missing."   Using CAP members to do a search is less likely to include kidnappers or murderers who misdirect the search.  That usually will generate a good natured laugh.   Add in the essentials of CAP doing land search - staying in a reasonably straight line and not getting so far away from each other that you miss essential clues.  Knowing enough to not go around bushes, and of course NEVER picking up clues.   If you do bring some task manuals give them page numbers to go over some of our essentials.

7) Talk a little bit about having aircraft that can search from the air or possibly (I know this is a pain) fly a non CAP member to survey a disaster site or get some essential body from point a to point b.   Considering how much of a headache that can be to make happen you might want to limit it to a talk about photo missions.

Have some slides of CAP at a flood disaster.   Or line search or?   Or airplane wreck.  If you don't have any ask.   I've got 20 years worth and I'm collecting from other members. 

Invite them to participate in your next UBX or SAREX and write them into the scenero.  Its rare to find a Cop or Firefighter who doesn't like to do "cool stuff" or have a chance to show what cool stuff they can do.  If they have Police reserves they will probably be very interested in our standardized training (Those task manuals you gave them to keep) and having a chance to do some hands on that doesn't include drunk people and frying in the sun doing endless hours of crowd control.   This has benifits that work the other way as we have had them invite us to participate in training they are doing.   Maybe they need a bunch of bodies for mass casuality training?   Simulated bad guy or?   Whatever!  Just keep CAP on the radar!

As a bonus (Depending on how good your guys are at commo) talk to them about how Civil Air Patrol has a survivable comm system and offer the concept of shadowing.  Police and Fire communications systems are getting more and more complicated and wide area disasters have a habit of turning complex systems into smoke and ash.   Small towns that get washed out are a good example.  We got a ton of Kudos when we set up one of our portable repeaters with a pushup mast and had city wide communications.   When the power goes off the gas station pumps stop working and whatever backup system they may have in place "might" poop out.  Its always good to have a plan B that doesn't need ANY infrastructure to work.   Seeing is believing.  Nothing "sells" better then having your local PD have a conversation with a far distant PD Chief in a city hundreds of miles away (Using a HighBird / portapeater to relay) and that will force you to work with distant CAP units which is always a good thing.

Measure success. 
Know how long (if EVER) the local Fire department, Police or Sheriff has had a presentaion on Civil Air Patrol.  Get a map and start sticking pins in it.  If you ever do a disaster relief mission doing a presentation to the local city government types is a good way to explain how we are NOT the Air National Guard.  ;-)  We did a flood mission where the Mayor went out of his way to shake hands, thank us and tell us that he made "[darn] sure all the news people knew how great the Air National Guard was."  And looking at our uniforms one after the other added, "Which none..... of you are in"  (Face plant)   "Who are you? and how do I contact you?"   *Note that this mission was called by the Fire Department chief yelling by Bull horn "YOU!  YES YOU!  Get your guys in the green suits!" then speeding off.  The only time I ever had a "reverse" alert mission.  Thankfully the IC knew how to work this type of unusual way of requesting CAP.   The chief had some vague idea of who I was and what I did but "guys in green suits" was all he could remember.   *Thus my passion for a little "edge-u-macation."

If you have an ELT mission "Invite Participation" you might kill two birds with one stone by asking the local Sheriffs where the high point is in the area.  Inform them that you are in the area and want them to know where you are and what your up to so if/when they show up (It can be boring to be a cop out in flyover land) explain as you go how we go about doing this and always put them in your sights for a future presentation.   *I've got some good pix of a perfect example of local Sheriffs deputies (3 of them) participating in an ELT mission.  Remember Cops like to do cool stuff.  Just as you do if your reading this.

One added personal comment.  If you have any "sea lawyers" who go out of the way to resist missions because we don't do "body searches" remember.  Your target isin't a "body" until you find them.   And I've heard of cases where people somehow find a way to survive for weeks walking around in circles in the woods.   *Probably watching "survivorman" on TV.

I'm sorry this got so huge and how awful my grammer and spelling is....

[Ed Bos]

Provide your ground teams with SARTEC training opportunities.  SARTEC is nationally recognized by EMS agencies and can help expand your capabilities for SAR. Professional SAR agencies know what it means when you're SARTEC qualified.  They don't necessarily know what it means when you're GTM1 qualified.

CERT and POD training will also expand your ground teams' capabilities.

CAP GSAR ratings are a nationally recognized SAR credential, and don't cost CAP members additional funds in order to become and remain qualified. SARTECH training can be valuable, as can any opportunity for additional training, but "professional" agencies know what your qualifications already mean if your ES Officers take time to explain our training and evaluation system.

[LTC Don]

CAP GSAR ratings are a nationally recognized SAR credential,

No.  It isn't.  It's known nationally in our organizational sandbox and no further.  If you think it is, then I challenge you to personally ask the FEMA Director what CAP Ground Team Members are trained to do and see what his response is.

"professional" agencies know what your qualifications already mean if your ES Officers take time to explain our training and evaluation system.

This approach does not work, and experience has shown this time and time again.  In order to be accepted into the other people's sandbox, you have to walk their walk and talk their talk, and that means accomplishing actual, nationally accepted credentials.  The other agencies aren't going to come into your Sandbox.  NOW -- having said that.  CAP is the worst in never inviting other agencies to come and play in SAREX's.  We've dug our own gaping hole since the 1970s and have to work to get out of it to become relevant.

Case in point, I participated in a missing person search in our wing several weeks ago.  Even when told we had multiple SARTECH IIs on hand, the SAR Planning staff wanted to use them in a line search.  There was never in inclination to use them in a hasty search mode, but to help keep the overall line search together.  For the next day's search area planning, there was no flexibility to use them to mark boundries or to hasty search the next day's search areas.  The work needed to become accepted into the civilian SAR culture can be very frustrating, and it takes time.

If the civilian SAR management teams don't work/exercise with CAP on a regular basis, CAP will always be relegated to the typical "Let's let CAP do a line search and see if they can find anything." role so even when you have SARTECHs on staff, they have to prove themselves as to their competence.  This is a long-term prospect that takes years, not months and certainly not weeks.

[Ed Bos]

I've had a different experience, Don.

I know guys at FEMA HQ that know CAP very well. I know folks at state public safety and emergency management agencies on both sides of the country that were appreciative of being briefed on CAP qualifications and capabilities. Responses varied, but the theme was something like, "we didn't know you had a training program like this, now we understand what you can do."

Keep up the good work, and I'm confident that you'll get to do more line searches and more as the relationship between groups builds.

But to say that we need to go out and get SARTECH qualifications so that people know what we are/can do is the wrong approach, in my opinion. Incidentally, I hold a SARTECH qualification, from my work on the county search team. I have an idea of what I'm referring to.

[RiverAux]

In order to be accepted into the other people's sandbox, you have to walk their walk and talk their talk, and that means accomplishing actual, nationally accepted credentials. 

Credentials that were made up by an organization of private individuals and private groups that has even less relationship to the federal (or state) governments than does CAP.  I bet you 95% of county sheriffs -- who are are target audience when soliciting ground team work know who NASAR is or what their credentialing system is about.  Plop our qual books on the desk and they'll be satisfied -- providing that they actually see your people perform up to those standards in the field. 

[RiverAux]

Don't get me wrong -- NASAR is a fine group and I've got no problem with them coming up with standards.  I just see no reason why their standards are any more legit than ours. 

[Panzerbjorn]

I've had a different experience, Don.

I know guys at FEMA HQ that know CAP very well. I know folks at state public safety and emergency management agencies on both sides of the country that were appreciative of being briefed on CAP qualifications and capabilities. Responses varied, but the theme was something like, "we didn't know you had a training program like this, now we understand what you can do."

Keep up the good work, and I'm confident that you'll get to do more line searches and more as the relationship between groups builds.

But to say that we need to go out and get SARTECH qualifications so that people know what we are/can do is the wrong approach, in my opinion. Incidentally, I hold a SARTECH qualification, from my work on the county search team. I have an idea of what I'm referring to.

I worked for FEMA for several years, and didn't know what CAP ground teams did until Katrina, and by that time, I had already joined CAP.  So, expecting FEMA to know what we do is not the way to go.  Also, even if there are some at FEMA HQ that know what CAP does, that doesn't mean that the Regional offices will know.  Federal disasters are not run out of FEMA HQ, they are run by the Regional offices and cadres of Federal Coordinating Officers.  FEMA is quick nowadays to utilize our air assets, but not so much our ground assets when they have CERTs available and trained to FEMA standards.

The concept of SATECH is not so much to have something so people know what we are/can do as much as it is a standardization and supplemental to what we already do.  The fact of the matter is that SARTECH and GTM are very similar, though a SARTECH II qualification is actually closer to a CAP Ranger qualification.

NASAR and SARTECH, FEMA and CERT, they're all designed to have a national standard for inter-agency use, just like ICS.  There's nothing wrong with incorporating any of those, and it's even encouraged.  I can't say I'm all that sympathetic to how a certification costs a member money while we encourage our members to attend schools like NESA, MERSAR, LSESA, Hawk, etc., and those aren't free for members to attend.  It's an optional certification, so if you can't or won't pay the cost of the certification, it's not a big deal.  But to dismiss something like that because it has a cost involved I think is not giving it a fair chance.

[RiverAux]

they're all designed to have a national standard for inter-agency use, just like ICS.

Sure, its a national standard, but it isn't THE national standard.  I could spend a few hours and come up with my own set of "national" standards. 

Until such time as the federal government comes up with actual national standards for ground SAR, CAP's are just as good as anyone else's. 

[Ed Bos]

But to dismiss something like that because it has a cost involved I think is not giving it a fair chance.

I'm not dismissing training because there's a cost. I'm saying that A) we have a solid training program, B) the more training, the merrier, but we shouldn't say anything that smacks of "you're not really trained or qualified until you hold a SARTECH rating. The cost is a barrier that we don't have to incur.

[LTC Don]

It has always been a mystery to me as to why it's never been done, especially given all the effort with the overhaul to the SQTR system some 15 years ago -- but it would seem to be prudent to:

1. Modify the Ground Team curriculum such that any modules not included to match up with the SARTECH III be added to the GTM 3, and so on, such that the Ground Team qualifications maintain the aviation-based SAR competencies, but have the missing person SAR added in as well. If we do the job right, any of our members, upon completing the requisite training, should be able to take the cert course for SARTECH II or I, and pass it.

2. Since CAP is in fact, and truly a 'National Organization' (and honestly, the only national SAR organization out there) and a genuine partner with AFRCC, that some type of legitimate, and published endorsement be made by some standards body to the effect that with #1 above implemented, that CAP Ground Team training in fact, exceeds NASAR standards, such that is we have personnel that reports in to a missing person search and the Planners ask how many SARTECHs we have, we can legitimately provide that answer even though we don't have NASAR patches sewn on.

But until someone sets down the various curriculums side by side (and as noted in CapTalk before, the National Park Service does not use NASAR, but has it's own certification program sandbox -- http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/RM-59.pdf ), and makes the necessary adjustments, we are stuck in 'ad hoc' mode. 

[wacapgh]

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/emergency/upload/DOI-Incident-Positions-Qualification-Guide.pdf

closer to our SQTR level documentation.

[Elihu.Lowery]

There are several issues that have to be addressed before you can integrate CAP resources (Ground Teams, Aircraft, etc...) into the efforts of another search organization.

1. CAPR 60-3 requires that all CAP assets must remain under the control of a CAP IC. So if you are integrating a Ground Team for example into the call out for the Mountain Rescue Team, how will that work.
2. In order to get Air Force insurance coverage, the NOC needs to be contacted and they will contact AFRCC to get the mission approved.
3. If AFAM approval is not requested, you still need to contact the NOC and have them approve the mission as a Corporate mission.

I know someone will jump on the thread and state that a MOU will solve all of these issues, however that is rarely the case. First of all, an MOU, are not that easy to get approved as they have to be approved not only by the legal team of the organization that you want to help but also by the Wing Legal Team, NHQ, and in most cases CAP/USAF and or AFRCC. Secondly MOU's are primarily used to define what services each party will provide and in CAP's case, how CAP's services will be paid for.

Your right Sir, I learned the hard way. The local Red Cross Director when I was still in the Mississippi unit came out and trained our Ground Team in First Aid/CPR, Disaster Assessment, & Shelter Management all for free since CAP has a MOU with them. When the State was gearing up for a Hurricane response the local Red Cross called our unit and requested assistance manning the shelters which we did without incident but there was a major problem. Both our unit and the local Red Cross Director had not notified CAP that we were utilized not until we submitted the mission paper work to the Wing.  Needless to say we got to spend lots of quality time with the Wing ES Director, Chief of Staff, and Wing Commander for the next month and never worked with the Red Cross again sadly.
The problem I have encountered with trying to work with the local EMS Director was that he was excited when I first notified him that we could perform SAR since he did not have a county SAR team however he lost interest once I told him that in order to use us he would have to request our assistance though the State EMS Office or call the NOC. He said that he never would call the State EMS unless it was a county wide disaster and changed his mind about the NOC once he learned that his Office would be responsible for any expenses. He decided he would just use his local VFD for any SAR needs.     

[Ed Bos]

The CAPAbilities Handbook has the notification and activation procedures in a handbook that you can give to emergency managers, partner NGO's (e.g., the Red Cross) and other folks that you may want to work with.

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/CAPabilities_Handbook_HighRes_046ADDF6591BC.pdf

Another tool in the tool box for ES Officers as they build relationships with community partners.

[Chappie]

I know that the county in which I reside not only has their own Sheriff's Office ground team for search and rescue but their own aerosquadron....so CAP is not even on their radar.  There was a joint training session about 20 years ago...we will leave that as is.  There have been no other training sessions since then...oh, well.   CAP does not have a mounted posse (at least not in our wing)...so there is no territorial issue (or budget item) there

[The Infamous Meerkat]

Our local Mountain Rescue team and county have really filled the needs on things that CAP could have done for them. Nowadays, we'd really have to stretch to consider ourselves "useful" to anyone. Our Wing has done such a bad job of managing our reputation and capabilities that we have to really market ourselves to the poorest of counties, just to have a mission at all.

[sarmed1]

It keeps coming up in conversation every time we have one on this theme, but I'll bring it up again.  Civil AIR Patrol.  Maybe we need to find ways to better emphasize that part of the mission when it comes to ground operations.  What I have started to stress with people is that maybe CAP needs to start looking at more of a Aviation Field Liaison Officer not an incident staff position... sort of a TACP for CAP (I know its going to have to be very tactikewl now)  Basically a qualified GTM that is trained and understands air asset use.  They can be attached to anyone's ground SAR unit, can work, function and support their tasking, but if they need tactical level air support, the CAP guy can talk to (commo specific and lingo specific) the air assets to enhance the teams field capability.  They are still doing the GSAR mission, they are just bringing the air mission along with them....

Otherwise I think DR is where CAP's mission focus needs to start to lean

MK

[Brit_in_CAP]

It keeps coming up in conversation every time we have one on this theme, but I'll bring it up again.  Civil AIR Patrol.  Maybe we need to find ways to better emphasize that part of the mission when it comes to ground operations.  What I have started to stress with people is that maybe CAP needs to start looking at more of a Aviation Field Liaison Officer not an incident staff position... sort of a TACP for CAP (I know its going to have to be very tactikewl now)  Basically a qualified GTM that is trained and understands air asset use.  They can be attached to anyone's ground SAR unit, can work, function and support their tasking, but if they need tactical level air support, the CAP guy can talk to (commo specific and lingo specific) the air assets to enhance the teams field capability.  They are still doing the GSAR mission, they are just bringing the air mission along with them....

Otherwise I think DR is where CAP's mission focus needs to start to lean

MK

Interesting assessment, and I basically agree.

My own wing still fields GT assets on a regular basis, and very effectively, but your assessment is accurate overall.

[LTC Don]

It keeps coming up in conversation every time we have one on this theme, but I'll bring it up again.  Civil AIR Patrol.  Maybe we need to find ways to better emphasize that part of the mission when it comes to ground operations.  What I have started to stress with people is that maybe CAP needs to start looking at more of a Aviation Field Liaison Officer not an incident staff position... sort of a TACP for CAP (I know its going to have to be very tactikewl now)  Basically a qualified GTM that is trained and understands air asset use.  They can be attached to anyone's ground SAR unit, can work, function and support their tasking, but if they need tactical level air support, the CAP guy can talk to (commo specific and lingo specific) the air assets to enhance the teams field capability.  They are still doing the GSAR mission, they are just bringing the air mission along with them....

Otherwise I think DR is where CAP's mission focus needs to start to lean

MK

Interesting assessment, and I basically agree.

My own wing still fields GT assets on a regular basis, and very effectively, but your assessment is accurate overall.

I get the notion to keep the aviation component out in front and totally support that.  However, the Federal mandate doesn't discriminate between air or ground.  Thus, we need to pursue any and all avenues to deploy assets as needed, wherever and whenever. I kind of like the TAC-P idea. The missing person search we had recently utilized a couple of helos with IR capabilities.  I don't know if any of the teams were talking to the helos directly though. The victim reported on at least one occasion a helo was directly over him, but never saw him, which belies the difficulty in locating an individual in moderate-heavy canopy.

A lot of this thread has danced around the pros and cons of NASAR and the SARTECH II certification.  Virginia is unique in that it has it's own state certification program, the Field Team Member and Field Team Leader certifications, and administered by VDEM.  The only drawback to CAP is the certifications are only issued to people 18 years of age and older. CAP cadets under 18 may take the training, and when they reach 18, can submit their documentation to receive their certification.  But until then, as I understand it, are not allowed to respond on actual missing person missions.

Even though what is needed is a national certification program that is modular and backed by a Federal agency, states developing their own state-level certifications have a lot more legitimacy than the program by NASAR. Much like the Federal DOT did with the Emergency Medical Technician program back in the 1970s and then adopted by the states.

[sarmed1]

There is no real National EMS certification.  NREMT certification means only that you met the  training and testing criteria of the agency (much like NASAR) It is still up to the states to regulate the actual certification and authority to practice at that level.  (state programs must meet the minimum guidelines, usually specifically to be eligible for DOT/HHS/DHS funding) Some states use NREMT testing or certification specifically as their testing/certification requirement but it is not a "blanket" certification allowing you to function in multiple states as an EMS provider.  Some states grans automatic reciprocity for NREMT some dont.  FL I had to actually take the NREMT test (yes the actual written test) again to obtain a FL paramedic certification, even though I was already an NREMT-P.  Why, because FL statute states you must take the state exam to become certified, they just happen to contract with NREMT to provide the exam rather than create their own.

The old draft FEMA typing and resource guide was the best thing going on at the time, and if it ever comes back would be greatly helpful.  If a state has its own standard, its up to CAP GTM's to meet that standard if they want to be utilized as an asset for those missions.  CAP units that cross borders on a regular basis should likewise look meeting that border states requirements.  There would likely be no national/federal certification that would regulate state requirements (those usually only go upwards, ie to participate in a federal mission you must meet  X, Y, Z criteria, rarely the other way around)

I wasnt saying CAP should abandon the GSAR mission as far as boots on the ground, beating the woods so to speak, only that in areas where it is not being utilized as that kind of asset it look to roles that are not available by other agencies and aviation support is one of the area where that may be (and in fact may open/ re-open the idea of utilizing them in a "strict" GTM role if the Liaison mission is well received)

MK

[ALORD]

Of the roughly 23,000 "Missions" I ran as a GTL, 22,900 were ELT's going off in hangers, trash cans, etc.  ( I guess I am dating myself, and exaggerating a tad too) Other "real" missions ( Including the Space Shuttle search)  never resulted in finding a living survivor. Not once. ( Although in the course of a few missions we ended up going off-mission to provide aid in some other manner) I let my NASAR membership lapse, since it appears that CAP is not particularly interested in doing SAR per se, and we are downright allergic to Emergency Medicine. I don't claim this as a bad thing ( Well, not finding anyone alive was definitely bad) So many members join with the idea that they will be able to "reform" CAP, especially in how it relates to ES, and Cadet Programs. In recruiting, you hate to shut down those Hams, Paramedics, NASAR people, K9 handlers, etc. With the knowledge that institutionally, this is just not CAP's way. I don't know how many SM's ( Not former Cadets) remember how and why they came into CAP, but it was in all cases I am sure, not exactly what they thought it would be. In my own case, my son ( A Spaatzen married to a Spaatzen)  joined, and my plan was to drive him to meetings, and  stay outside and catch up on Cellphone and Computer work. One day, some shiny faces in camo uniforms knocked on my car window until I rolled it down. What happened after that was blurry, but I believe it was a Chloroformed rag, because it seemed like 20 minutes later, I was sitting in front of a table while someone took my semi-conscious fingerprints, pushed in front of a filled out membership application and forced to sign at gunpoint, and having my clothes torn off and replaced with woodland Camo. Another half hour later I was a deputy commander for something, my wallet was empty, and I had been appointed Emergency Services Officer for the Squadron. ( Well, that's the way I remember it) Even though I was enthusiastic about "pushing" CAP into doing "real" SAR, my second Squadron Commander, Gordon Ziegler ( May he live forever in the halls of Valhalla, R.I.P.) just nodded his head and had me complete one task after another, until I had tons of Certificates and Merit badges, and learned what CAP was slowly and without killing my enthusiasm. I tell people that there are many great things CAP does ( Cadet Programs! Foxtrot Yankee!) but if they want to do SAR or EMS, there is no reason they can't cross-dress ( For you in the Navy, it does not mean what you think) to get their side order of ground-pounding.

A. Lord, MAJ

[Brit_in_CAP]

Virginia is unique in that it has it's own state certification program, the Field Team Member and Field Team Leader certifications, and administered by VDEM.  The only drawback to CAP is the certifications are only issued to people 18 years of age and older. CAP cadets under 18 may take the training, and when they reach 18, can submit their documentation to receive their certification.  But until then, as I understand it, are not allowed to respond on actual missing person missions.

Even though what is needed is a national certification program that is modular and backed by a Federal agency, states developing their own state-level certifications have a lot more legitimacy than the program by NASAR. Much like the Federal DOT did with the Emergency Medical Technician program back in the 1970s and then adopted by the states.

Colonel....I trimmed your post a little for quoting....

I'm not an expert here and I'll defer to anyone with more knowledge.

The Commonwealth of Virginia does have its own program and everything you wrote in that regard is correct, as far as I know, up to the age part.

Cadets from my squadron who are under the age of 18 have participated actively in missing person missions following CAP procedure etc.  Tasking comes through the proper routes and teams are assembled and released under CAP rules and procedures.

I won't pretend to know all of the intricacies of this by any means and I'm simply offering my own experiences.

[SARDOC]

I believe in North Carolina CAP has become a major player in points of distribution (PODS) even being written into many EOPs. Maybe someone from there can talk as to their success. As to ARC, I serve as a Disaster Program Manager and neither CAP nor ARC can figure out what to do together. This is something I am trying to work on in my area.

I'm glad you brought that up.  Yes, there is a push for Civil Air Patrol to become a more active participant in Points of Distributions and Shelter Management type work.   That being said we are still a relatively small organization to create that kind of presence across the Country.  The FEMA course curriculum development team was in discussions with CAP at the National Level to at least utilize Civil Air Patrol as a Training Partner in providing PODS and Shelter Management courses to other volunteer organizations and local governments who are ultimately responsible for those functions, but that we could develop those relationships to support them if the need came up.