Declining Use of Ground Teams

[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.