Lack of ES response

[bflynn]

I always love the attitude of some pilots that think it is somehow beneath this organization for anyone to put boots on the ground. They forget that only a small portion of our membership are actually pilots.

Well, Ok.  Let's just be honest then and just call it the Civil Patrol.  If we aren't about airplanes, then why do we have so many of them?

Our original Congressional mandate was 90% about airplanes and flying and 10% about being a civic minded organization.  My belief therefore is that our activities should be similiarly balanced.

[SarDragon]

Well, then, let's rename the Air Force as just The Force, since there are many more people involved in supporting the flying of airplanes than there are actually doing it.

I've got some broad statements coming up here, so don't nit pick the numbers. If you have more accurate figures, bring 'em.

Nationally, our membership is split about 50/50 cadet and senior. The cadets aren't really part of the flying aspect of CAP. A significant chunk of the seniors exist only to support the cadets. I'm going to throw out a 33% figure, although I think it's actually higher. That leaves only 1/3 of the membership doing the flying.

Hmm... Three missions - AE, CP, ES (flying). It looks like the percentages come out about right.

YMMV.

[Eclipse]

If we aren't about airplanes, then why do we have so many of them?

The airplanes support our other missions as well.

Flight-based ES actually works out to be less than 1/3 of our mandate.  Quoting the charter is meaningless since things have evolved significantly since it was adopted.

[RiverAux]

Our original Congressional mandate was 90% about airplanes and flying and 10% about being a civic minded organization. 

Uh, no.  Might want to read that again.

[wuzafuzz]

Self-deployment is preached against in every ES, ICS, or public safety class I've ever attended.  Self-deployment has been documented as counter-productive in many incidents nationwide.  CAP, as an organization cannot merely decide to mount an organized response to an emergency we aren't invited to.  Moreover we might not be properly equipped or trained to respond to the incident in question.  We only saddle up as a team if our leadership offers assistance and that offer is accepted, or we are activated pursuant to an MOU or other agreement.

Having said all that, if we find ourselves knee-deep in an emergency that unfolds around us then we are within our rights to act...as private citizens.  We do what we must until we can remove ourselves and others from the danger.  Then we get out of the way of the professionals.  Once that happens we don't go back in representing CAP unless invited.

Would it would have been appropriate for CAP to offer assistance in the story you shared?  That depends on the circumstances, including the training of your local CAP members and relationships with local public safety.  Labeling a decision to stay out of the way as cowardice might be a bit much.

Personally I have been involved in disaster recovery work with CAP.  There are useful things we can do as a group, even with minimal training.  In my case we assisted Salvation Army with food and water distribution after a tornado.  Worthwhile work, but we only did that after being asked.

[Private Investigator]

I am not suggesting that we jump fire/ems/police calls.  I am a career LEO with 25+ years of full time, paid service &  I don't like call jumpers!

I am retired after 25 years as a policeman.

I had an interesting call jumper scenario. A police sergeant called to tell me to tell my CAP buddies not to jump a call. If they were not CAP they would have been arrested. I call the Senior Members involved and their story was, we responded as private citizens.

I really should of called the sergeant back and told him to arrest those morons. That is why we are called last or never. Some people think they are God's gift to SAR and when you point out they screwed up they just go into denial.

[wuzafuzz]

Even when duly authorized, CAP members sometimes don't help themselves.  Once upon a time I was an airport patrol officer and threatened to arrest some CAP members who were driving recklessly on an airport ramp while searching for an ELT.  I threw a nice warning their way before they displayed continuing stupidity that required a more direct approach.  I was a CAP member at the time so it was a little awkward.

[Spaceman3750]

In my case we assisted Salvation Army with food and water distribution after a tornado.

Interesting that you bring the SA up. I've heard that they have a nasty habit of self-deploying in my area.

[LTC Don]

Rule number 1 in ES: We do not self-dispatch to missions! We are assigned missions. If you go off on your own, you are just that; On your own. Unless they were assigned a mission, they should not undertake a mission on their own authority. This would/should not stop people from pitching in, in the event of a disaster, but they are acting as private citizens. CAP is not trained or equipped for disaster recovery, its not our gig, although many ( as I do)  feel that it should.

Major Lord

All true except for the italicized.  It is absolutely CAP's 'gig', and is clearly stated as such in CFR Title 10 and Title 36.  The problem has been for decades though, that NHQ talks the talk, but has not shown any leadership on walking the walk in terms of meeting the requirements of Federal Law. A great example of this is to compare the 2004 version of 60-3 to the 2009 version and see how badly it was gutted of DR material, which was already vague.  NHQ still has no clue on how to administer any kind of coherent CERT program in partnership with Citizencorps/DHS.

If the OP's wing had been on the ball, and had already prepared itself, it should have been dispatched on defined missions, not - "We have ground teams, we can help!"  Emergency Management doesn't do CAP-speak and doesn't know, nor care what CAP ground teams are.  Emergency Management speaks FEMA-speak and until CAP can also talk FEMA-speak....there will continue to be problems integrating CAP into the disaster response framework.

It's a simple statement:  CAP performs Disaster Relief.

OK.  Fine.  What exactly does that mean?

Typical response:  "Well, we help people."

"How, exactly do we do that?"

:crickets:

Until that last question can be answered in a way that any FEMA or Emergency Management staffer can understand, or themselves answer in a competent manner, CAP will continue to be grossly underutilized in an actual disaster situation.

From the ground perspective, the two most promising programs a wing can undertake are:

CERT  (IS-317)

and

FEMA Points of Distribution (IS-26)

From the air perspective:

Aerial digital imagery

Communications relay

Evacuation route overwatch

Aerial Damage Assessment (flying FEMA/EM staffers or other political leaders)


Many wings are doing a great job and I'd love to see a listing of what programs other wings are doing in times of disaster.

[Major Lord]

LTC Don,

Don't get me wrong, I wish CAP trained its ground people to National Standards; NASAR, CERT, etc. Our pilots do a lot of work in disaster recovery. Our inability to carry out DR with personnel on the ground stems from inconsistent membership ability, certain federal agencies requirements for Personnel to be at least 18 Years old, and the undeniable fact that we have no infrastructure to support lines to forward operators. Its not our Gig because that's the path our leadership has chosen for us. After nearly a Year on the ground ( well mud) doing DR after Katrina, I became acutely aware of what's required to support and maintain ground pounders and civilians in the field and come back with all your fingers and toes. ( Although I managed to come back with a bacterial and parasitic gut infection that triggered a case of Crohn's disease which will eventually kill me unless an angry Captalker busts a cap in me first!)

Getting back to the original post though, it makes me sorry for the member who feels a loss of friendship for what he perceive as indifference or cowardice. If he came to CAP for ES, someone should have thoroughly briefed him on our rules of engagement. Who knows if he was over-sold on the program or naive and optimistic about our potential?

Major Lord

[bflynn]

Our original Congressional mandate was 90% about airplanes and flying and 10% about being a civic minded organization. 

Uh, no.  Might want to read that again.

Actually, I'm trying to find the original public law 80-557, but for some reason, google is failing me.  I know I've read it before.

Anyone have a link?  All I can find is a bunch of pages that say that CAP was chartered under 80-557, but nothing with the original law...

[FlyTiger77]

Our original Congressional mandate was 90% about airplanes and flying and 10% about being a civic minded organization. 

Uh, no.  Might want to read that again.

Actually, I'm trying to find the original public law 80-557, but for some reason, google is failing me.  I know I've read it before.

Anyone have a link?  All I can find is a bunch of pages that say that CAP was chartered under 80-557, but nothing with the original law...

Here is a link to 36 USC 403: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/36C403.txt

The purposes of CAP, Inc are codified at 36 USC 4302  which states:

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.


It may or may not have what you are looking for.

[bflynn]

I think this is part of it - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Public_Law_79-476

This is the 1946 law that converted CAP from a combat oriented organization to a civil service organization.

Section 2. Objects and purposes of corporation.The objects and purposes of the corporation shall be—
(a) To provide an organization to encourage and aid American citizens in the contribution of their efforts, services, and resources in the development of aviation and in the maintenance of air supremacy, and to encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare;
(b) To provide aviation education and training especially to its senior and cadet members; to encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities and to provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies.


Ok, maybe it's only 80% about aviation.  If all we're doing is the last phrases of each part, then we're failing at the rest.

My point is that CAP ought to be about airplanes.  It's why we were chartered, it's what we're known form.  Forays into Emergency Management learning how to stand up emergency supplies distribution points is nice, but not the main focus of what we were charged to in 1946.

Later laws may alter this, but this is what I see as the original mandate of CAP.  We're about serving our communities with airplanes.  That's what our focus should be.

[bflynn]

Ok, this is better...

Chapter 403 is about CAP.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/subtitle-II/part-B/chapter-403

The section on Purpose is specifically in chapter 2 at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/40302

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.

I recounted and I was wrong above - so I'll amend my earlier statement to say that 80% of our charged mission is about aviation.  The remaining 20% is about assisting in emergencies.  I'll still suggest that what we can contribute to emergencies that is most valuable and unique is our skill at operating airplanes.

[RiverAux]

Yeah, but you're totally ignoring the fact that in so far as emergency response is concerned, there is absolutely no suggestion that CAP is meant to be an aviation-based resource.  In fact, CAP could buy 500 flat-bottomed boats and go pick up stranded people after a flood and be entirely in keeping with Congressional intent. 

Sure, when we're not responding to disasters we're clearly supposed to be focusing on aviation, but otherwise we're not constrained. 

[LTC Don]

Irregardless of percentages, the quoted CFRs are not mere suggestions, but our marching orders.  How we get there is up to CAP to decide, and that is why the statutues are phrased so ambiguously such as:

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

As long as this statute has been around, CAP still hasn't been able to define what that means, and set up a framework to address it, in partnership with the Air Force, FEMA, et al.

We, as volunteers choose what area(s) to specialize in; those that don't interest us, we don't have to be involved with, but we certainly need to at least be familiar with those areas and respect those members that choose to be involved in said areas of expertise.

This is a great thread.

[bflynn]

I agree that it doesn't prohibit us from using flat bottom boats or running POD units during emergencies.

Still, the overall body of the law tells us that we're about aviation.  Let's not dilute what we do by doing something completely different.  Especially when I don't think we're doing all that great a job (anything?) with some of the other marching orders.

[johnnyb47]

We can be all about aviation via the Aerospace Education mission without owning any aircraft at all, couldn't we?
Not that I'd want that myself, just sayin.

[CAP_Marine]

I find it interesting how many here hold so dear to the misconstrued notion that CAP has no role to play in DR, or that because we are so set in our ways other organizations don't recognize our capabilities. It is obvious that some Wings are doing a great job in getting the word out. WA Wing is specifically mentioned in one of my examples below.

FEMA 508-2 (Typed Resource Definitions, Incident Management Resources) mentions CAP specifically in regards to Airborne Relay as well as doing so again for Communications Support Teams. In my opinion, this document (and the next) is where we should concentrate any revamp of our ES training curriculum to make ourselves more useful to agencies.  With a couple of exceptions, there really isn't a role (in 508-2 at least)  that we couldn't provide, given proper training and programming.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/incident_mgmt.pdf

FEMA 508-8 (Typed Resource Definitions, Search and Rescue Assets) has tailor made typing for CAP aerial search teams and also has typing established for Radio Direction Finding Teams that I would be surprised to find was not based off a CAP model. Wilderness Search and rescue teams are also an easy fit for SOME ground teams.

Where we go wrong is in not using the proper terminology when we communicate our capabilities to outside agencies. Which makes more sense: To tell the local Sheriff that your unit has a Ground Team, Incident Management Staff, radios and an aircraft available? –or- Tell your local Sheriff that your unit has a Type II Air Search Team, a Type IV Wilderness Search and Rescue Team, a Type II Radio Direction Finding Team, a Type II Communications Support Team (CAP), and a Type IV Incident Management Team available and ready to support? It really doesn't matter what CAP calls it (although it would be nice to get on the same page as the rest of the nation!), if you are able to translate CAP talk into FEMA speak, your unit has a much better chance at getting the call when the balloon goes up. I've never heard of the Virginia Defense Force, but they offer a decent example of how to state their capabilities on their webpage (notice the availability of aircraft?)
http://www.vdf.virginia.gov/vsdfcapabilities.html

The OP seems like an excellent opportunity to conduct some analysis, open up the lines of communication with outside agencies, clearly communicate your capabilities and set up some MOUs. As was mentioned, making the call to offer support when you are already standing on the X is usually not the best time. I will say, however, that when the desperate call for help wdid go out, somebody from Wing should have been on the horn trying to figure out how CAP could assist. Then again, maybe they were...

[754837]

If he came to CAP for ES, someone should have thoroughly briefed him on our rules of engagement. Who knows if he was over-sold on the program or naive and optimistic about our potential?

I came back to CAP mainly because of the Cadet Program. When I was a cadet in the 70's, the ES component is what made me and my fellow cadets feel special & superior to boy scouts.  In fact, in my squadron to be called a "boy scout" was the supreme insult!

As far as being over-sold on the program... maybe.  Naive and optimistic... I think both are accurate.

Maybe it is just me but when I was a squadron commander I spent nearly all of my CAP time on paperwork and almost none of it "doin stuff".