ICs for ELT missions

[isuhawkeye]

This is a very interesting conversation, but I thought I would add a different perspective.

CAP is the only agency I work with that starts an operation with the highest level certification, and works down.  The fire department I'm on does things the other way around. 

The first unit tasked has a company officer (lets say a lieutenant)  they arrive on the scene and become the IC.  After that the Ladder truck comes with a Captain.  If the situation warents he/she takes over the command. 

Finally a Chief officer arrives.  If the incident is under control he lets the captain run things.  If it is more complicated a transfer will take place. 

this system allows junior officers to gain valuable experience as they develop.

I'm not saying CAP should do this

Just a different perspective

[Eclipse]

A good point - a lot of agencies do that, even basic ICS training tells us that the person who is "there" is the defacto IC until told otherwise by a competent authority.

However, where this breaks down for us, again, is our lack of grade-based authority and inconsistency of training. 

A fire or police LT >is< an LT, at least in their context, afforded the command authority and responsibility commensurate with a similar level of both in most departments nationwide.  Many departments have inter-agency agreements that provide authority to "whomever is there" or "whomever is local".  Those that don't have agreements still do it in practice.

So in most cases, when multiple companies or cites show up (i.e. squadrons) to the same event, first-guy-there is in charge.  In CAP, we have a lot of "ok, I'm here now, I'll run the show", regardless of their real place in the universe - having a top-dog IC from the start quells most of that.

Starting at the top in CAP may be a symptom or reaction to the reality that if you let on-scene people run the show you'd have ego contests all over for "chief", and then everyone disavowing responsibility for the paperwork or any snafus.

Starting with a UDF team(s) or GTL who then grows things from there makes sense, but you'd need a big stick to whack the egos of ribbon-hogs and power-nuts.

[RiverAux]

I suppose what I'm getting at is that an OSC is the lowest rung in CAP's ES structure that is trained to lead a task force (which is what an aircrew/GT combo is) responding to a minor incident.  So, we should use it as such for those missions.

Sure, the OSC isn't a CAP qualified "Incident Commander" but neither is a police officer (the incident commander) making a traffic stop, which is used as an example of a Type 5 Incident Type in my ICS 300 book.  That cop is fully qualified to handle that type of incident, but you wouldn't put him in charge of a hostage situation where you've got SWAT and 50 officers participating. 

Our problem is that we've set up our ES training structure to handle major mission missions such as missing aircraft searches, which surely do require a full mission staff and an "IC".  Those are our most complex missions, but not our most common.  You wouldn't send the same guy to run the traffic stop that you'd use to run the hostage situation, but that is exactly what we do. 

We have made some steps towards acknowledging this situation by having 3 types of IC, but the differences are so minor so as to be meaningless and will probably be even less so as we make people take ICS300/400 for those jobs. 

[Short Field]

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. 

Maybe in your wing.  In ours, it adds THREE people to a double digit list of ICs.   OSCs and AOBDs and PSCs and anyone else have NO authority.  They only function on the DELEGATED authority provided by the IC.

RiverAux - I will ask again:  How many additional bodies does your solution provide?

[Short Field]

this system allows junior officers to gain valuable experience as they develop.

And that junior officer has had how many more hours and days of training in running that situation than our entry level IC3 gets in running a SAR?  Lets see - it takes mission participation on 14 exercises (defined as a sortie or a operational period)  to progress from MS to IC3.   I don't think your LT had less than three weeks of training?   

[wingnut55]

In the Day before ELTs CAP would be called out on an "overdue" aircraft, or a "Missing AirCraft. After a ramp check they would start a route search.

Now CAP spends a huge amount of time searching for "malfunctioning ELTs, now a malfunction includes "operator error, and crappy maintenance. Don't give me any horse doo about the " They might be hanging in their straps stuff", you don't know anything about it, except the propaganda.

in 2009 this will come to an end, WHY? because the ELTs will not be monitored by the AFRCC on 121.5, so all of those broken down airplanes (with the flat tires), or the "Thrown in the Trash" ELT units will not need us. CAP was never meant to be a "Maintenance whipping child" for General Aviation. Our Commanders at Wing and National allowed it to keep up the false image of our inflated self worth.

A decade ago the Air Force began a study that Criticized CAPs need for 500 Aircraft,
CAP was not able to be open and Honest with the Tax payers as to the utilization and use of these aircraft. 911 came along and our leaders have tried to create many roles for us, much of that has been eyewash, the truth is 25% of our aircraft are not being flown, many of our pilots are too old to be flying military style missions. During the Fosett mission we were referred to as the "Diaper patrol" by people on the ground at one of the televised mission bases. In California there are squadrons with only 2 mission pilots for their plane. ELT searches?? AFRCC can't get the US Navy and the US Army to look for ELTs going off in their own Aircraft, so CAP has to go out to be denied entry on the base. So what are we learning from all this??

As for 911, the California wing had been operating on a Air National Guard base, 911 came along and the Air Guard shut the gate and California Wing staff was not allowed to enter, to obtain equipment, records, computers, radios, NOTHING", California Wing operated from trunks and peoples homes. Why??

I will rant about that another time.

[RiverAux]

Maybe in your wing.  In ours, it adds THREE people to a double digit list of ICs.

Then I would say that your wing is sadly failing in building up their upper level mission staff cadre and until that problem is fixed this idea wouldn't help your wing. 

And yes it is a problem to have such a small number of people in the pipeline to becoming an IC.  Maybe you've got the "right" number of ICs for your state right now, but if you don't have people preparing to take over for those that inevitably retire, burnout, or otherwise leave active CAP service, you're looking at trouble down the road.  By the way, keep in mind that you're probably going to lose a percentage of those ICs for not taking ICS300 and 400 by later this year.     

[IceNine]

In the Day before ELTs CAP would be called out on an "overdue" aircraft, or a "Missing AirCraft. After a ramp check they would start a route search.

Now CAP spends a huge amount of time searching for "malfunctioning ELTs, now a malfunction includes "operator error, and crappy maintenance. Don't give me any horse doo about the " They might be hanging in their straps stuff", you don't know anything about it, except the propaganda.

in 2009 this will come to an end, WHY? because the ELTs will not be monitored by the AFRCC on 121.5, so all of those broken down airplanes (with the flat tires), or the "Thrown in the Trash" ELT units will not need us. CAP was never meant to be a "Maintenance whipping child" for General Aviation. Our Commanders at Wing and National allowed it to keep up the false image of our inflated self worth.

A decade ago the Air Force began a study that Criticized CAPs need for 500 Aircraft,
CAP was not able to be open and Honest with the Tax payers as to the utilization and use of these aircraft. 911 came along and our leaders have tried to create many roles for us, much of that has been eyewash, the truth is 25% of our aircraft are not being flown, many of our pilots are too old to be flying military style missions. During the Fosett mission we were referred to as the "Diaper patrol" by people on the ground at one of the televised mission bases. In California there are squadrons with only 2 mission pilots for their plane. ELT searches?? AFRCC can't get the US Navy and the US Army to look for ELTs going off in their own Aircraft, so CAP has to go out to be denied entry on the base. So what are we learning from all this??

As for 911, the California wing had been operating on a Air National Guard base, 911 came along and the Air Guard shut the gate and California Wing staff was not allowed to enter, to obtain equipment, records, computers, radios, NOTHING", California Wing operated from trunks and peoples homes. Why??

I will rant about that another time.

Interesting rant but its completely inaccurate for the post you are replying to.

In 2007-2008 I can think of 4 crashes, 2 of which were multi day/ multi wing events, where quite literally the pilot was hanging from the straps.  And that is just in Illinois. 

Your mentality is the poison that is affecting CAP's mission readiness on a daily basis.  Everyone wants to respond when they can, or once everyone has been given a chance to go.

I say once you have a team roll with it and as other's call in they can wait for the next team to roll.  Just like the volunteer fire dept's.  The first people at the station jump on the truck, and roll out, the next people wait to fill the next truck and roll it out.  until a competent authority makes a decision on what resources are required.

The fact that the Army and Navy won't look for ELT's on their aircraft speaks only to their vigilance on their aircraft.  They know that every plan/helo that took of today is sitting on their ramp so why do they care if the locater is on

The fact that we were referred to as the diaper patrol at 1 mission base tells me that there was likely someone of power at that base who was spreading hate and discontent, most likely because CAP at these types of missions is a federal asset and local folks don't like having "the gov't" shoved down their throat.  This is the same reason why it is increasingly difficult to get the local EMA's to request us through their states.  If they call in the fed's they feel they have lost the game.  but if they call us through the NOC, we are a local asset, we just won't get the funding we'd hoped for.

[NavLT]

Capability and Response is a defining characteristic in where things are going for CAP.  10 years ago we got called for 24 missing person searches in NY, last year we got called for 2.  The number of missing person searches state wide only changed by 1. What is the difference it is the marketing job of our wings Ops and PAO folks to the Responsible Agencies (RA), the capablilities of our troops to respond in a guaranteeable fasion (can you launch an Aircraft in the next 2 hours?  HMM not sure I'll try ), and What are the troops in the field capable of (your a GTM 1,2,3 lets see your 72 hour pack...oh I don't have one).

Most of the "volunteer fire" descriptions revolve around a first in truck, which in most cases has a company grade officer (LT or Capt) that has IC training per NFPA and IAFF.  And most of the fire agencies have a battalion or other cheif on duty to call for the 2nd, 3rd, alarm when it goes bad.

If we hope to get called for missions that matter (and I would argue that most actuals start off with an ELT, even though most ELTs are not an actual) we need to train to a professional standard, have enough people trained to offer a reasonable response time and duration, and then sell our services to the people who would call for them.

Does the local GTL know how a local Sherrif can request CAP services?  Probably not but the IC does.

Lets not even go into paying for this as the payment for CAP on missions not from AFRCC gets really messy.

V/R
Lt J.

[Short Field]

And yes it is a problem to have such a small number of people in the pipeline to becoming an IC. 

We keep our pipes clean.       Once a person shows a desire to progress past AOBD or GBD, we try to move them along in their training and provide training opportunities for them.  One of the three is now a IC3-T.  The other two appear to have lost interest in progressing.   That does not count the 4 new ICs we trained in the last six months.  OSCs should be on a fast track to IC and not allowed to loiter at the OSC qualifications - unless the Peter Principle comes into play.

How are your pipes?

[Larry Mangum]

Washington Wing use to have Mission Mangers to run ELT missions and a signed and approved supplement to CAPR 60-3 authorizing it.  The minimum qualification to be a Mission Manager was to be a qualified Air Branch Directory. The Mission Mangager was limited to events that utilized no more than 1 HighBird, 1 Search Aircraft and 1 Ground Team.  Anything else required calling out an IC.

The Mission Manger program went away about 2004 as the wing transitioned to NIMS and all missions were handled by at least IC-3's.  NHQ, envisioned IC-3's as being the lowest qualification for running small missions, at least that as how I remember a phone conversation with John Demarais at NHQ.

[Major Carrales]

Some of the "CAP Self-loathing" in this thread is making me sick.

The fact is, we care called to be professionals.  There are a few people in CAP that think we are a "flying club" and are never around to be mission pilots, air or ground crews. 

Fact is, CAP works best when it is working in all its missions.  The ELT phase out in 2009 is going two do two very important things, 1) reduce false signals, 2) increase the likelihood that when called (because of the system to be in place) the mission is likley to be REAL!!!  You know, Distress.

That is going to mean being more vigilant than merely semper vigilans as it exists today.  I'm talking having people on standby to fly, real training, interagency operability and assests in all parts of the WING.  This requires training at the Squadron Level in local areas.

This will require that CAP be more like the fire companies mentioned in this thread, first to get there set the ball in motion and the more experienced takes command as needed.  IC3 is going to have to be a position every unit has, for Group at least.

[Eclipse]

Icenine, thank you for your factual reply to Wingnut.

Mine was likely to be a TOS violation.   

[IceNine]

[emote]

Bow's to Eclipse

[emote/]

[sardak]

The original intent of the IC3 rating was to manage the typical non-distress DF missions.  A number of wings had created a special category of IC, or used IC trainees, to run these missions.  The idea was to not burn out the ICs needed to run missing aircraft missions on these frequent, less complex incidents. This concept also recognized the fact that a member with ground team experience, not aircrew experience, often had more appropriate knowledge.  It potentially built up the number of members who might want to transition into managing the missing aircraft or lost person searches, or at least help a fully qualified IC manage them.

To give an official rating and credibility to these personnel, the IC rating was split into the three "types," following the wildland fire model.  However, in implementing this plan, focus was lost, or the intent ignored, or the naysayers got their way.  These were the members who believed that only fully qualified, know everything about anything, ICs should run all missions.  What if the "typical" non-distress DF mission turned into a distress mission?

Now there is a proposal to create five levels of IC in CAP, in the completely erroneous belief that this is required for NIMS compliance.  The fire service identified five levels of incident complexity and now has five types of IC.  FEMA has included the five levels of complexity in some of its documentation, but not five levels of IC. But some in CAP think we have to have five types of ICs or we won't be NIMS compliant.  Nonsense.

Mike

[IceNine]

I am under the whole hearted belief that IC-3's should run missions that start out as an ELT and missing person's type, but should be fully aware of their abilities.

2's should be able to manage region level disaster or wide area searches

1's should be able to handle anything tossed at them. Katrina, Fossett, etc.

I idea of using IC-3T's to run ELT missions with minimal supervision is a good idea, provided they have someone that they can hand off to as soon as it gets beyond a certain point, and that they are checking in at appropriate intervals.

I don't see CAP being able to staff 5 level's of IC and more importantly appropriately allowing members into those positions.  There are already entirely too many IC-1's and even more so with IC-2's that cannot handle the types and magnitude of missions that they are being handed.

It is a thin line that we walk already and there needs to be better defined criteria for what is required to be an IC at the different levels.

[RiverAux]

The multi-level IC concept is generally okay.  However, having to go all the way through Branch Director, PSC, OSC before getting to the lowest level IC in order to run a simple ELT mission defeats the purpose since what this does is mean that in practicality there is very little difference between the ICs.  Having 5 levels given this basic starting point is not bright either. 

[Short Field]

We had a similar discussion a couple of years ago.  It was decided that we really had no way to train anything higher than a IC3 in our wing.  To get an IC1, you first need a IC1 to train them.  Then you need a couple of training missions rich enough in Major Incident exercise inputs to allow them the experience of a Major Incident.  Otherwise, it is just a paperwork drill.

[IceNine]

The multi-level IC concept is generally okay.  However, having to go all the way through Branch Director, PSC, OSC before getting to the lowest level IC in order to run a simple ELT mission defeats the purpose since what this does is mean that in practicality there is very little difference between the ICs.  Having 5 levels given this basic starting point is not bright either. 

What is the problem here?

So our IC's must have done enough before they become an IC to be able to manage a mission should it escalate beyond a non-distress situation.  And IC regardless of level should be able to handle a known fairly contained known search area.  If there is an overdue aircraft that we know from NTAP or whatever was within the state an IC-3 should be able to handle that.  Or if we have a disaster site from tornadic activity, again IC-3 should be the way to go.

Again going in with someone who is only trained to handle non-distress ELT's is NOT an appropriate response.

If we are going to send in someone who cannot run OPS, or planning, or finance admin, we are setting them up for failure.

Those areas are required because even the smallest non-distress hard landing will require all of these things, and they will require that it be done by the IC.

There is no reason to dumb down any of our training to cater to the probabilities in this situation.

[RiverAux]

If we are going to send in someone who cannot run OPS, or planning, or finance admin, we are setting them up for failure.

My suggestion was to use qualified OSCs.  They already know how to do all that. 

What is the problem here?

As explained above, we're using our most highly trained personnel to run the simplest missions rather than using the general ICS concept of using the right amount of resources based on the complexity of the mission. 

If the incident becomes more complex, then you call in resources more appropriate for the more complex incident -- also a basic concept of ICS.