ICs for ELT missions

[RiverAux]

Before I start, let me state that I fully understand that even a lowly old run-of-the-mill ELT mission has the potential to quickly escalate into something major and their is the potential for all sorts of things to come up.....

But, I would like us to consider whether we really need a fully-qualified IC working every single ELT mission considering that the vast majority of them involve 1 aircraft and 1 ground team or sometimes just one or the other and considering the regular burnout that can happen when ICs just get burned out by having to run too many ELT missions. 

According to the CAP Homeland Security resources page (and I have no idea how current that is), we have 691 Incident Commanders of all types.  That sounds like an adequate amount and in fact in most states it probably is (though we could always use more).  But, in the states with high level ELT/EPIRB I don't think even that is enough.  For example, Florida which has a huge number of ELT missions, only has 32 ICs and I bet each of them easily might get several calls a week to do missions. 

So, what I would like to throw out for discussion is the possibility of allowing qualified Operations Section Chiefs to be placed on the call out list used by AFRCC for ELT missions only.  Their is very little real difference between and IC3 and and OSC and any OSC should not have any problems running an ELT mission. 

Obviously, we would need to implement some criteria for when an ELT mission run by an OSC has to be turned over to an IC.  For example, if other information comes in that indicates that an actual crash or a known missing airplane is involved.

And, I probably would consider limiting this to areas with high ELT mission volume.   Heck, the OSCs in those areas have probably done dozens more missions than ICs in many parts of the country anyway.   

[Short Field]

So, what I would like to throw out for discussion is the possibility of allowing qualified Operations Section Chiefs to be placed on the call out list used by AFRCC for ELT missions only.  Their is very little real difference between and IC3 and and OSC and any OSC should not have any problems running an ELT mission. 

The only difference between an IC3 and a OSC is sign-offs on six C-XXXX tasks and participation on two missions as an IC.  Three of the tasks are key to running any type of incident - how you do a 201, develop a IAP, and close the incident with a 115.  Oh, also a willingness to be the Incident Commander (as in the buck stops here).

Just have the OSCs get in gear and finish their training and become ICs.  If they can't get the Wing and other ICs to support the training, then maybe this is a non-problem with the current ICs.

You are either an Incident Commander or you are not.  There is no "well, I can run the mission just fine - except I am not signed off as qualified".

[lordmonar]

And heck....for a simple ELT seach...the IC could be clear across the state running it from his home.

[isuhawkeye]

There is no reason that an IC couldnt get the call.  delegate the entire mission to staff, get the report at the end of it all, and file it with AFRCC.  builds experience with the OSC, and takes the burden off the IC

[BigMojo]

And heck....for a simple ELT seach...the IC could be clear across the state running it from his home.

That's happened on a couple occasions to me here in S. Florida with having an IC in the Tampa area...a little more of a pain having to cell phone in as opposed to the VHF, but not so much as to detract from effectiveness of the team or IC.

[Eclipse]

And heck....for a simple ELT seach...the IC could be clear across the state running it from his home.

That's generally how its done by me - being essentially run by qualified people in the field with oversight by an IC on the phone, but at the end of it the IC is still ultimately responsible.

[RiverAux]

Yes, the actual running of most of the mission can basically be delegated to an OSC right now and yes an ELT mission can be run by anyone in the state.  But, that doesn't keep ICs from slammed with phone calls on a regular basis, especially if they are known to be one who actually answers his phone and takes a mission. 

[Short Field]

Our state has 3 people who are not ICs but qualified above the AOBD level (either a OSC or a PSC).  Not much of an addition to cure a problem.

How many OSCs who are not ICs does FL Wg have?
Why are they not progressing to IC (two missions and some training)?

The bar is low enough has it is to become a qualified IC - why lower it even further by allowing non-ICs to run a mission.

[isuhawkeye]

being essentially run by qualified people in the field with oversight by an IC on the phone, but at the end of it the IC is still ultimately responsible.

Does this explain why the same aircrew's, and ground teams get called time, and again. 

Trust

[JohnKachenmeister]

Before I start, let me state that I fully understand that even a lowly old run-of-the-mill ELT mission has the potential to quickly escalate into something major and their is the potential for all sorts of things to come up.....

But, I would like us to consider whether we really need a fully-qualified IC working every single ELT mission considering that the vast majority of them involve 1 aircraft and 1 ground team or sometimes just one or the other and considering the regular burnout that can happen when ICs just get burned out by having to run too many ELT missions. 

According to the CAP Homeland Security resources page (and I have no idea how current that is), we have 691 Incident Commanders of all types.  That sounds like an adequate amount and in fact in most states it probably is (though we could always use more).  But, in the states with high level ELT/EPIRB I don't think even that is enough.  For example, Florida which has a huge number of ELT missions, only has 32 ICs and I bet each of them easily might get several calls a week to do missions. 

So, what I would like to throw out for discussion is the possibility of allowing qualified Operations Section Chiefs to be placed on the call out list used by AFRCC for ELT missions only.  Their is very little real difference between and IC3 and and OSC and any OSC should not have any problems running an ELT mission. 

Obviously, we would need to implement some criteria for when an ELT mission run by an OSC has to be turned over to an IC.  For example, if other information comes in that indicates that an actual crash or a known missing airplane is involved.

And, I probably would consider limiting this to areas with high ELT mission volume.   Heck, the OSCs in those areas have probably done dozens more missions than ICs in many parts of the country anyway.   

Florida has 33 IC's.  I got my new qual added on Sunday.

[NavLT]

Better to have an IC assigned, even if they are on the far side of the state asleep during the mission, then to assign the mission to a non-IC have it go bad and try to find one.....

Command is Command.  Right now my wing is covering missions from the next wing over due to lack of ICs, but I would not think it wise to dump the mission on a GBD/AOBD/PSC/OSC who does not know how to run a full mission.  They can run the OPS stuff (and ususally Do) without any signifcant input from the IC, but when it gets ugly you want the qualifed member running the show.

V/R
Lt J.

[Short Field]

They can run the OPS stuff (and ususally Do) without any signifcant input from the IC, but when it gets ugly you want the qualifed member running the show.

A good IC might keep it from getting ugly in the first place. 

[Major Carrales]

A while back, the Teas Supplements had made allowances for an "ELT MISSION MANAGER" which was basically an mini-IC. who was designed to handle such things.  I don't think this exists anymore.

Anyway, I do not really see this as an issue.  If you recall your ICS training, the first one on the "scene" is the mission Incident Commander until relieved by a person of higher authority (more experience, position et al.)  Thus, if an ELT call were to "go RED CAP," then all that would happen is the the intial fellow managing the mission would surrender his/her position to a more able person when the time comes.

[SJFedor]

I've "run" multiple missions without being an IC. For that simple "wake up, turn the prop, and find the guy who left his ELT going off in his plane" missions, we'd find an IC who would sign onto the mission, he would then turn it over to his "staff" (me) as the OSC or AOBD, and I would plan and execute as usual, giving him updates as needed.

This has kept my ICs happy, gives some of our "up and coming" types experience, while still having someone they can call at a moment's notice, and taught me quite a few things.

[IceNine]

I for one like the security of having the IC to field any problems that occur.

there have been dozens of times when I go into the field and run the ground ops and let the IC sleep.  Periodically we call or in some cases simply text ops normal (preferred).  But even being an OSC myself I don't want the responsibility of working with AFRCC or doing the mission paperwork.  It is much easier to run the mission than run the mission, coordinate with the customer, and go get the thing.

I am a firm believer that the man in charge should not be in the field

[RiverAux]

To be clear, I would want an OSC running an ELT mission to stay at their base (living room/home office) and not out in the field just like most ICs run those things.  Also, I wouldn't advise having a GBD or AOBD serving in this role either.

How many people would allowing OSCs run ELT missions add to the mix?  Well, hard to say, but based on the pyramid principle, there should be more OSCs in a Wing than ICs, so even if we assume that not all of them would want to be on ELT mission list, I think it could add a significant number of people into the mix when AFRCC goes calling. 

[IceNine]

So would OSC's require approval of a corporate officer to begin training?

The way i understand it IC's require Wing commander approval before being allowed to train because they will be directly charged with making commitments to our customers, or put another way entering into verbal contract and offering whatever services we can provide.

While the idea is not totally out of the box, it does have some fundamental flaws.

[Eclipse]

The other issue here is treating "elts" as "non-distress ELTs".  Giving some missions "lessor" commanders insinuates a "lessor emergency", which is a symptom and problem today of the way our people respond.

Frankly we should be treating all AFRCC alerts with a full-press, if only to exercise out too-lazy muscles.  You can light up an entire ICS structure without anyone actually leaving their home, and they are all ready if things go "real" on you.

Fire department roll full-blast without making assumptions, and don't stand-down until a competent authority puts eyes-on
the situation.

We've had more than a few "non-distress" situations in the last year, both in my state and others where the "non-distress" signal at the end of the ramp turned out to be a crashed-airplane with pilots literally hanging in the straps.

Throwing up our hands and saying "being an IC is too hard, so lets just lower the bar" isn't the answer.

[RiverAux]

Yes, I would suggest Wing Commander approval for OSCs in these situations. 

I fail to see much of a difference between the 1-person mission staff made up of an IC vs one made up of an OSC in terms of CAP committment. 

As to treating each of them with a "full-court press", I can only assume you're talking about standing up a full mission staff with OSC, PSC, GBD, AOBD, IO, CUL, etc. which is wildly inappropriate and a waste of resources for ELT missions, especially in the "hot zone" wings that have 2-3 (or more) ELTs a week.  Sure, if you want to do a little bit of staff training every now and again, thats fine.

We've had more than a few "non-distress" situations in the last year, both in my state and others where the "non-distress" signal at the end of the ramp turned out to be a crashed-airplane with pilots literally hanging in the straps.

Sure, but 97% of the time it is a non-distress mission and frankly, if at the end of your ELT search you find a crashed plane CAP's involvement in the mission is going to end so quickly (almost all the time) that it won't matter at all whether an IC or OSC was on the other end of the cell phone.

Its all about a wise allocation of resources.  In some places we are burning our people out on minor missions that someone with a slightly lower qualification is perfectly capable of handling.  You don't send in the Delta Force when the local SWAT team can handle it.

[Eclipse]

I fail to see much of a difference between the 1-person mission staff made up of an IC vs one made up of an OSC in terms of CAP commitment.

We're not talking about commitment, it has no bearing on this discussion, we are talking about objective qualifications.

CAP has set a standard for the "head cheese", period, and those who wish to aspire to that role have extra work to do.
There are plenty of us who don't want the burden and choose to stay at lower rungs on the ladder.

The average GBD, or AOBD could run the vast majority of our missions, some actually do in practical reality, but at the end of the day you need a guy in charge who knows the whole score, knows how and when to escalate things, and has the authority to go along with it.

OSC's, for whatever reason, haven't achieved that yet, either because they are too new, or have chosen not to take up the training and responsibility.  Granting them the keys to the executive washroom for expediency's sake is not the answer.  Also, for every rung you push down the ladder, the fudge factor of the next in line increases.

A different class of IC, maybe, but not pushing things further down the chain officially.

A compensated service would solve this problem by requiring billeting for "x" number of IC's, and restricting other activities if you hold the IC qualification (to reduce distractions), while also increasing the compensation or ancilary benefits of the duty.  The solution for every one of CAP's problems is "telling people what they will do", instead of asking them "what they'd like to do" and then allowing them to do "everything" to the end of being proficient in nothing (in many cases).

Since that ability will likely never exist in a volunteer organization, I have no idea how you wrangle more people to do these jobs. 

I thoroughly enjoy being a GBD. That and AOBD are about as high on the food chain where you are still effectively an operational asset, and can mostly stay out of the line of fire of the political and ego fallouts of planning and above.  Plenty of responsibility, plenty to do, yet you're still ultimately a shooter on someone else's point.  I have no particular interest in moving up higher right now, even though I am getting pressure to do so.

What I'm seeing is many of our people move into IC because "if they don't, who will?" and then they find themselves saddled with huge responsibility and none of the fun of CAP.  Thankfully my wing has some butt-kicking IC's, who have proven themselves on a national level, for us to emulate, but the actual carrot for all the extra work and headache escapes me.