Local Ground Teams or Wing "Pool" Teams

Started by ♠SARKID♠, April 14, 2014, 09:32:08 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Garibaldi

Quote from: lordmonar on April 15, 2014, 05:17:08 AM
The only question I have about a wing "pool" concept is.......who brings the "team" gear?

Is every member supposed to have a complete team set up.....just in case they are the only one who shows up?   Is it just the GTLs?

Does wing have a few kits perpre-positioned?

FTFY.

Anyway, if the "team" gear is assigned at the unit level, and it should be, then each responding unit should bring theirs with. The local unit  GTL, if available, should ensure that the team is equipped in case they have to strike out on their own, but also plan to be split up at the ICP. A couple months ago, as GBD-T I should have re-assigned assets because we had a huge turnout (80 something participants or so) but it was decided to leave the squadron assets in place. Everyone had their own LPer in any case, as well as radios. Made it easier to out-process when the individual units left on Sunday after a brief outbound sortie. Could have merged teams on Saturday, but did not. If the gear doesn't get used it doesn't get used. Better to have it and not need it, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Point is, both systems have their merits. I prefer unit cohesion but plan for the split. I always warn my team that it could happen and that, given their high quality of training by me (just broke my arm patting myself on the back), they should be prepared to help out whenever they can and to be on their best behavior. Honestly, I have never had my team split up except for once, and it was a giant Charlie Foxtrot, perpetrated by the GBD who really did not know their posterior from a hole in the ground. They were aware of a potential problem yet proceeded anyway despite my objections.
Still a major after all these years.
ES dude, leadership ossifer, publik affaires
Opinionated and wrong 99% of the time about all things

THRAWN

Quote from: Garibaldi on April 15, 2014, 02:31:27 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 15, 2014, 05:17:08 AM
The only question I have about a wing "pool" concept is.......who brings the "team" gear?

Is every member supposed to have a complete team set up.....just in case they are the only one who shows up?   Is it just the GTLs?

Does wing have a few kits perpre-positioned?

FTFY.

Anyway, if the "team" gear is assigned at the unit level, and it should be, then each responding unit should bring theirs with. The local unit  GTL, if available, should ensure that the team is equipped in case they have to strike out on their own, but also plan to be split up at the ICP. A couple months ago, as GBD-T I should have re-assigned assets because we had a huge turnout (80 something participants or so) but it was decided to leave the squadron assets in place. Everyone had their own LPer in any case, as well as radios. Made it easier to out-process when the individual units left on Sunday after a brief outbound sortie. Could have merged teams on Saturday, but did not. If the gear doesn't get used it doesn't get used. Better to have it and not need it, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Point is, both systems have their merits. I prefer unit cohesion but plan for the split. I always warn my team that it could happen and that, given their high quality of training by me (just broke my arm patting myself on the back), they should be prepared to help out whenever they can and to be on their best behavior. Honestly, I have never had my team split up except for once, and it was a giant Charlie Foxtrot, perpetrated by the GBD who really did not know their posterior from a hole in the ground. They were aware of a potential problem yet proceeded anyway despite my objections.

This brings up a good point. Everone, should (I know, that's the land where unicorn ponies and gumdrop houses are from) be able to "click in" to any team. Just because the people have never worked together before, doesn't mean that the positions are any different. I know in the real world, people try to build cylinders of excellence, but when the balloon goes up, each operator needs ot be aware that they might not be working with the people that they always work with. This is especially true in multi-unit operations. A GTM is a GTM is a GTM. Take a FLWG GTM and put him in NJWG, and he should be able to operate the same, because he has had the same training. This is unfortunately, one of the areas that CAP is weak in.
Strup-"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
USMC CSCDEP 2023

Spaceman3750

If you go in with the expectation of being split up, there's no point in building the cylinder of excellence in the first place. I don't know why a GBD would split a team that's trained together for months or years. It's just going to upset people and break what is known to be a working unit.

Eclipse

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 15, 2014, 03:26:16 PM
If you go in with the expectation of being split up, there's no point in building the cylinder of excellence in the first place. I don't know why a GBD would split a team that's trained together for months or years. It's just going to upset people and break what is known to be a working unit.

For starters, that training and excellence may make them the best candidates to lead the other teams.

As you know, in our wing most active GTs are adults, certainly on real-world missions, and in many cases
everyone on the team is a GTL.

Given the choice I'd prefer to work with the 5-10 guys I've been working with for a decade, but mission
mandates come first.

This is a reason the training is supposed to be standardized at all levels.

"That Others May Zoom"

JeffDG

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 15, 2014, 03:26:16 PM
If you go in with the expectation of being split up, there's no point in building the cylinder of excellence in the first place. I don't know why a GBD would split a team that's trained together for months or years. It's just going to upset people and break what is known to be a working unit.

Why would a GBD do that?

Perhaps to give a GTL experience with working with an ad hoc team?  In a actual mission, you often have to scratch together a team from what you have on hand, and as such, I think GTLs having experience doing that is incredibly valuable.

THRAWN

Quote from: Eclipse on April 15, 2014, 03:37:28 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 15, 2014, 03:26:16 PM
If you go in with the expectation of being split up, there's no point in building the cylinder of excellence in the first place. I don't know why a GBD would split a team that's trained together for months or years. It's just going to upset people and break what is known to be a working unit.

For starters, that training and excellence may make them the best candidates to lead the other teams.

As you know, in our wing most active GTs are adults, certainly on real-world missions, and in many cases
everyone on the team is a GTL.

Given the choice I'd prefer to work with the 5-10 guys I've been working with for a decade, but mission
mandates come first.

This is a reason the training is supposed to be standardized at all levels.

Aye, "supposibly"....in a lot of places it is. In far too many, it is not, even in the same wing.
Strup-"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
USMC CSCDEP 2023

a2capt

My first experience on joining and trying to participate in ES was that not only was it a "wing" pool, it was a "pre-determined" pool in very much a clique like way.

With mostly a certain IC taking nearly every mission and calling on his select few. If you were lucky enough to get called and you said "I can't" you never got called again. They were probably looking for Commanders Commendations for narrowing down their pool to draw from significantly, making ES response on par with paid first responders on call with their turnouts at their bedside.

TSEEKER

Our wing uses a quasi wing/local pool.  It stands to reason that if you get an ELT search with no aircraft on the far end of the state you will want to use the unit/or units closest to the probable area to cut down on travel time.  I've seen it work well with within unit and put together but geographically near UDF teams.
As far as the typical ground teams, how many missions do we really need a full ground team for?
JH

ol'fido

In an ideal world,  every wing would have enough organized, unit-based teams to cover the entire state without a team having to travel an inordinate amount of time/distance to reach a mission base or search area. On the other hand, you can also have some very dedicated and talented individual GTM/Ls in units that otherwise have no appreciable ES capability. The key is too not be too parochial about one approach or the other and blend them into a working whole. If you do enough training in your wing/group, everyone will be familiar with the "usual suspects" and they can seemlessly integrate into an established team that may be short a few members for one reason or another or form an effective team from the "individual augmentees"  who respond to the call out.

I don't believe that ICs should just call on the GOBN when their is a call out. That is unfair to the rest of the people who have trained hard and want to contibute. It is, however, more of a "sure thing" to be able to make one or two phone calls and get a team rolling than to put out a text/email alert and sit and hope for someone to reply. If I was an IC, again I would blend the approach. If I knew of a team that was within reasonable distance of a mission, I would call and get them rolling and then put out a general call for anyone else. That first team may get the job done, but they may also need some bodies and they may need relief for the next operational period.
Lt. Col. Randy L. Mitchell
Historian, Group 1, IL-006

RiverAux

While I think everyone recognizes the need to occasionally shuffle team members around when composing the team before hand or after reaching the scene, I have a hard time understanding why it would be advantageous to use a "pool" as a standard practice.

I would assume that even there, most units that want to do ground team stuff have enough folks for a ground team or are working towards that goal.  I can also understand that there may be some stray ground team folks "stranded" in units that aren't interested in doing it as a unit and whom might have to link up with other teams in order to train and deploy. 

That being said, I have no problems with putting out a general call for ground team members when they are needed in addition to trying to deploy specific squadron-based teams.  But at some point trying to organize 3 teams with vans from 3 squadrons and 10 random people around the state into a coherent force is going to be a logistical challenge.  At some point its not going to be worth the effort to get that one last guy who is going to drive across the entire state by himself to participate. 


Eclipse

#30
It's not "advantageous" it simply "is".

When you have zero expectation of response or performance, people will do what they feel like doing, and
you have no way to control the location or readiness of a given asset or member.

With no national, regional, or wing personnel requirements (which would be meaningless anyway since we don't slot
or billet people beyond "interested?") there isn't even a way to keep people current.  People show up when they feel like it,
do what they feel like doing, and increasingly there are less of them to pick from.  The active members have 12 jobs and
can't keep up with qualifications on all of them.  I was the Wing ESO, active all over the place, and couldn't get my own GTL/GTM
requaled for the last three years because I was locked in the ICP doign GBD, PSC and LO stuff.

Vans are not generally located based on central availability or ES preparedness, they are issued based on "a place to park it",
or "it goes with the trailer", etc.  And in my wing, anyway, the use of COVs on missions, especially ELTs is pretty unusual because
of the hassle factor.  Unless a COV POC is also coincidentally a GTL, few are reaching for a COV when they
have their own car and will get reimbursed.  We also have a couple who have CAP DLs but simply don't like driving
those 8MPG beasts.

Having a "full team" from a given unit is potentially meaningless if the majority are cadets, especially for the late night call outs,
or the GTL is not available, doesn't have an L-Per, has a full Tivo queue, or whatever.

Also, in my wing, it's not unusual that the members live nowhere near their unit of assignment.
We have wing staff that live 90 minutes to 6-hours from Wing HQ, and a LOT
of members drive an hour to a meeting from the major metro area to the suburbs, so putting
gear at the unit would require driving there first unless the ELT was going off in the parking lot.

We also have an increasingly large swath of dark patches where there is simply no CAP presence.
My wing has lost two units and  group in the last calendar year and there are others struggling for viability.
We have (or had) some GTLs who lived in the metro area and didn't own a car. At one time
this was actually a fairly significant problem as 2-3 or more of our A-Team GTLs were in this situation.

The team concept is great, but then it also requires an alert infrastructure that has to be followed and maintained
all the way down the chain as well, and not really necessary in this day and age.

The SOP has been that if a given unit wants its people to respond as a team, they establish that
when the REDCAP messages go out, one person from that unit does the team configuration and then
reports in to the IC when they are ready.  Works about 30% of the time for one or two units.  Looking
back anecdotally over the last couple of years, I'd be surprised if there were more then one or two times
a coherent "team" was even available, let alone responded as such.

We had one situation where the only assets available were two hours away, even though
the ELT was going off near an airport that has a large CAP unit. 

Otherwise the flag goes up, people call in or email the IC, and then respond from whereever they are with
whatever they have.  Any mission that expands beyond one aircraft and a couple of ground teams will generally
get expanded ICS staff and be handled more formally.

I just ran some reports.

My wing currently has 28 Units and 5 Groups.

24 Qualified GTLs as of today, but that includes a number who are from the same unit.

Only 10 GTLs are from distinct units which are not Group HQs, and these are not geographically
distributed in anything but a shotgun fashion. 

Running a GT3 list, with the assumption this would be the lowest level of call-out,
there are 85 total, however a number of those are also the GTLs, and again there
is no planned distribution, they are where they are.

I also noticed that in several cases, there is a GTM but no GTL at that unit.

At the micro there are trainees to add-in, but others who do nothing but qualify
would probably balance those.









"That Others May Zoom"

Fubar

Quote from: Eclipse on April 15, 2014, 06:22:55 AMI don't really consider that "team gear" - every body has that stuff, with the exception of the L-Pers which are assigned to groups or units, not teams.

Well, you're forgetting the stokes basket, the med bag with enough crap to fill an ambulance, IR chem lights for the aero ambulance response, and police radios to contact Buford T. Justice.

Walkman

A couple of years ago, MIWG had a big missing person mission in the UP. The alert came to the entire wing that whomever go go and plan on being in up there for at least three days should report. All the team, both air & ground, were made up from the people that could make it. 2 Saves, BTW, on that mission!

Our Group has its own alert roster so we can pool the resources somehwat locally. My unit doesn't have pilots or AC, but we've got a few MS/MO people. There is a unit ~30 minutes east with a plane. Our Group CC is an IC, so he can pull together an aircrew from both units in a pinch.

I just finished GTL, so now my unit has a full GT. We'll train together, but I suspect that the upcoming Wing SAREX we'll have some people from other units join us for sorties.

BFreemanMA

MAWG also does the pool of GTMs and aircrew. I haven't been in an actual mission yet, but all members from my wing convene together and teams are formed from there. The bigger squadrons in the area have the L-PERS and any other expensive items, but each team member has their own gear. For aircrew, it looks like the same deal is in place.
Brian Freeman, Capt, CAP
Public Affairs Officer
Westover Composite Squadron


NIN

Quote from: RiverAux on April 16, 2014, 12:27:20 AM
While I think everyone recognizes the need to occasionally shuffle team members around when composing the team before hand or after reaching the scene, I have a hard time understanding why it would be advantageous to use a "pool" as a standard practice.

I would assume that even there, most units that want to do ground team stuff have enough folks for a ground team or are working towards that goal.  I can also understand that there may be some stray ground team folks "stranded" in units that aren't interested in doing it as a unit and whom might have to link up with other teams in order to train and deploy. 

That being said, I have no problems with putting out a general call for ground team members when they are needed in addition to trying to deploy specific squadron-based teams.  But at some point trying to organize 3 teams with vans from 3 squadrons and 10 random people around the state into a coherent force is going to be a logistical challenge.  At some point its not going to be worth the effort to get that one last guy who is going to drive across the entire state by himself to participate.

I've seen plenty of instances where pooling members is handy/advantageous.

I've also see it where people got parochial and refused to play. ("We don't want to go on a joint sortie with that team. They're not as good as us.." Wait, what?)

I haven't played ground team in a number of years, but when I was a GTL, I pretty much had the personal policy that as long as I could accommodate someone, no matter where they were from, they could ride with us.   Sometimes it was Joe Rando cadet who is a newly minted GTM and he's at a mission sans team.  Sometimes it was "These guys came to the mission, but we need their GTL to work in the ground branch, and their other guy is covering the comm shack until 1400.  Can you take their 3 cadet ground team members on your sortie?" 

I always taught my teams, both here and in my previous wing, to avoid being fixated on a "hard" team concept.  Sure, it is good to know each other and your capabilities, but don't be so closed off that you can't pick up a strap-hanger or two and be all thrown off.

Many, many years ago (1992?) there was a "region" mission that was run out of Valpariso, Indiana.  There were a metric crapload of people from IN, IL, WI, OH & Michigan at that mission.  We got a LOT of taskings jointly with other teams. 

If you're all carrying 101 cards, in theory you're all trained to a certain baseline standard.  (in theory)

Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

THRAWN

"I always taught my teams, both here and in my previous wing, to avoid being fixated on a "hard" team concept.  Sure, it is good to know each other and your capabilities, but don't be so closed off that you can't pick up a strap-hanger or two and be all thrown off."

Great point. And people need to keep in mind that we are, overall, a fairly small community. GTers tend to know eachother by name, if not by sight. So not only do we, mostly, know each other, we are trained and equiped in a similar manner. In theory...  :)
Strup-"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
USMC CSCDEP 2023

RiverAux

I would submit that if an entire Wing is so poor in ground forces that it has to count on 1 or 2 individuals each from many far-flung units to band together with other mini-groups of similar size in order to put together a usable ground team (or multiple ground teams), that they may as well get out of the GSAR business. 

It actually pains me to say that since as many of you know, I believe the most promising area for increasing our ES workload is on the ground. 

Either doing a poor job at recruiting potential GT members, training potential GT members, or retaining actual GT members or perhaps all three.

At some point it just becomes too cost-prohibitive, in terms of money and volunteer time, in order to retain the vestiges of a real ground team program. 

If a Wing has to go to such great lengths to put boots on the ground they are better off just letting the locals handle that part of the mission.  A better use of time of those CAP members interested in GT work may be in training them to work primarily with the locals to assist in air-ground communication (for example like AF people they put on the ground to guide air strikes -- if they still do that). 

Heck, having the CAP folks spending the time developing relationships with the locals in preparation for that sort of mission would actually probably result in an increase in requests for CAP services and maybe, just maybe, over the long run cause enough interest in CAP GSAR to reactivate our own program in that area.   

Eclipse

Quote from: RiverAux on April 16, 2014, 08:09:09 PMHeck, having the CAP folks spending the time developing relationships with the locals in preparation for that sort of mission would actually probably result in an increase in requests for CAP services and maybe, just maybe, over the long run cause enough interest in CAP GSAR to reactivate our own program in that area.

Which was / is exactly my wing's current training framework.

Recruit heavily, incorporate ES into your 13-week calendar (calendar?  What calendar?), develop local relationships, and
have extra-meeting activities driven by the unit and group.  The intention being to build a ground swell of members and customers
that would then drive the training and additional recruiting and growth.

/crickets

"That Others May Zoom"

RiverAux

Uh, actually I was suggesting that the GT program basically be shelved and whatever momentum that was in it be re-directed towards just providing CAP support to other local SAR teams/Sheriff's Offices or whoever the relevant agency is. 

In other words, dump the pool system in so far as trying to assemble CAP ground teams.  Don't try to field a ground team except from units that actually have functioning programs and adequate personnel.  Re-train and equip the existing isolated GT folks to be air-ground liaisons. 

If you've got a Wing or Group staff member gung ho enough to even try to re-vitalize the program, tell them to spend their time going to meet with local sheriffs, etc. and promote CAP air SAR capability, be honest about very limited CAP GT capability, and instead offer liaisons to their own teams. 

Eclipse

#39
My only comment to that is that somehow we've managed to get things done for the 15 years I've been in.
However I acknowledge that, while our ability to brute-force things is a credit to the people involved, but it isn't scalable, nor sustainable.

The majority of the same 150-200 people who were the active players 15 years ago are still the majority today,
but they are now 15 years older without a 1-2 or even a 1-2 set of replacements.  Many have moved up the ICS food chain
with no one backfilling them as field assets.

We're fine on the normal mission curves, the major challenges are in expansion or depth at position, from direct
in-person experience, discussions with NHQ staff, CAP-USAF, and other Ops staff in other wings and Regions,
our capabilities tend to float towards the top on the organization, and are certainly typical of the Region, if not
many wings nationally.

Frankly, while old-timers speak of sustained / self-contained ES response at the unit level "BITD"  the CAP
I've been in has never had that capability or expectation.  It's great when units are able to do it,
but it's because of self-actualization, not any higher mandate or expectation.

And for full disclosure's sake, I am both defensive on this and in agreement, at least at the high level.
A lot of this was my responsibility, and my frustration at the inability to get anything to change without
command imperative is one of the reasons it's >not< my responsibility anymore.

"That Others May Zoom"