Medal or Reprimand?

[RiverAux]

See this story about a plane crash at a little airshow that apparently had CAP on scene.  Two cadets apparently entered crashed plane, turning off fuel switch and doing something with the transponders.  Another cadet apparently guided in a helicopter. 

http://www.ledger-dispatch.com/news/newsview.asp?c=261379

[SarDragon]

Medal.

[heliodoc]

SAWEEEET!!!

Cadets in action!!   Medal

But the real CAP will find some sort of safety problem or "punishment."

Punishment ...right here on CAPTalk

[coolkites]

SAWEEEET!!!

Cadets in action!!   Medal

But the real CAP will find some sort of safety problem or "punishment."

that is sadly so true. 
Medal

[RiverAux]

It appears that none of the passengers suffered any injuries as they were just described as "shaken", so it doesn't seem to me that entry into the aircraft was required for lifesaving purposes. 

Yet, two cadets went into the aircraft and against our policy, as expressed in the GT Ref Text, began disturbing switches and aircraft controls.  Sure, they did this to prevent a fire, but seeing as how the article says that two of them entered this small plane to do this, we can probably assume that all the passengers were out at that point.  So, rather than trying to move people back from a dangerous scene, they go into it for no good reason. 

While we don't know at what point the photo was taken, it appears the cadets are making no effort to try to move people back from a potentially dangerous scene and instead we see one climbing around on the wing of a crashed aircraft that appears quite unstable.

Unless the real story is that there was someone trapped in the airplane and the cadets went into it to make it safe for that person to get out (in which case I'd be in favor of a medal), I see a couple of cadets who, in violation of CAP policy regarding crash sites, that made the decision to put themselves and all the people millling about the plane at risk so that they could crawl in the wreck rather than getting everybody far enough away from the plane so that if it did catch on fire, no one would be in danger.  Its the job of the fire department to risk their lives to save property, not CAP cadets. 

Incidentally, where are the senior members?  Were these cadets so unsupervised that they were able to head off into an accident scene without a senior member taking charge of the situation?  Where was the senior member suprivising the cadet who took it upon himself to try to land a helicopter (we all know helicopter pilots rarely really need or appreciate such help during the day).  If there was a senior member that was actually supervising these actions, he probably needs to be kicked out for not putting a stop to it. 

[Chappie]

Definitely medal

[Eclipse]

Incidentally, where are the senior members?  Were these cadets so unsupervised that they were able to head off into an accident scene without a senior member taking charge of the situation?  Where was the senior member suprivising the cadet who took it upon himself to try to land a helicopter (we all know helicopter pilots rarely really need or appreciate such help during the day).  If there was a senior member that was actually supervising these actions, he probably needs to be kicked out for not putting a stop to it.

+1 - First thing I wondered.

CAP's SOP is to address life safety issues and then cordon off the area until such time as FD says things are safe.

As indicated, there does not appear to any emergency situation with the aircraft or passengers, so once they were out, everyone should have backed away from the scene.

Neither medal, nor reprimand, but a direct conversation with the seniors, cadets, and the cadets' parents about our regulations and proper procedure.

[Hawk200]

Give them a medal in public, rip 'em a new one in semi-private?

[Jerry Jacobs]

Air Force-sponsored club

WTF?

Anyways about the medal or Reprimand debate, there may have been fear of back injury with the passengers, therefore it would be favored to minimize any movement of the passengers.

[CadetProgramGuy]

Cadets did the right thing.  In the situation they perserved life and property until advanced care could arrive.

So the pilots and passengers were "ok", what if the fuel was not shut off?  They also reported what they did to preserve life and property.

Medal.

[Cecil DP]

It looks like that photo was taken from 50 yards away, so someone was doing crowd control.

[lordmonar]

It appears that none of the passengers suffered any injuries as they were just described as "shaken", so it doesn't seem to me that entry into the aircraft was required for lifesaving purposes.

Sitting in your living room after the fact...it is easy to make that call.

Yet, two cadets went into the aircraft and against our policy, as expressed in the GT Ref Text, began disturbing switches and aircraft controls.  Sure, they did this to prevent a fire, but seeing as how the article says that two of them entered this small plane to do this, we can probably assume that all the passengers were out at that point.  So, rather than trying to move people back from a dangerous scene, they go into it for no good reason.

Point 1.  You are allowed to move switches and debris to safe lifes and make the scene safe. 
Point 2. You again make assumptions after the face about what they should have done.

While we don't know at what point the photo was taken, it appears the cadets are making no effort to try to move people back from a potentially dangerous scene and instead we see one climbing around on the wing of a crashed aircraft that appears quite unstable.

Assumptions again.

Unless the real story is that there was someone trapped in the airplane and the cadets went into it to make it safe for that person to get out (in which case I'd be in favor of a medal), I see a couple of cadets who, in violation of CAP policy regarding crash sites, that made the decision to put themselves and all the people millling about the plane at risk so that they could crawl in the wreck rather than getting everybody far enough away from the plane so that if it did catch on fire, no one would be in danger.  Its the job of the fire department to risk their lives to save property, not CAP cadets.

Just about any story of heroism can also be a story of what not to do. As for who's job is it......is that what we really want to teach our cadets and officers?  I mean we can extend that entire thinking to CAP as a whole.   SAR is the USAF's job and the local Sherriff's.  Let's play the what if game.  What if there was someone hurt in the crash, what if there was a chance of a fire....but our cadets too afraid of "breaking the rules" did nothing but to tell everyone to get back and wait for the fire department.  How many times do we read about someone who could have been saved if someone had just acted soon enough.

Incidentally, where are the senior members?  Were these cadets so unsupervised that they were able to head off into an accident scene without a senior member taking charge of the situation?  Where was the senior member suprivising the cadet who took it upon himself to try to land a helicopter (we all know helicopter pilots rarely really need or appreciate such help during the day).  If there was a senior member that was actually supervising these actions, he probably needs to be kicked out for not putting a stop to it.

And now that is some really assinine Monday Night Quarterbacking!  Someone needs to burn because our cadets acted in a way we teach them to act.  Quickly, appropriately and with concern for our fellow man.  But no......there must have been some lack of supervision so let's burn them!

River.....You tend to be a Debbie Downer about all thing CAP.....but this just takes the cake!  This is exactly how I would want my cadet to react.  Even if their actions were not needed.  Even if they may have broken some rules, they did so with the intention of saving lives and prevenint loss of property and they did it with out getting hurt.  If that is now to your likeing....may I suggest you take your football and go into someone else's backyard to play.

[IceNine]

This is the definition of what the Silver Medal of Valor is for.  Most SMV acts were done with the best of intentions followed by 20/20 vision of "what was I thinking".  The question here will be given that the pilot had only minor injuries was there a potential for loss of life, there by dictating the award given.

Stepping into a dangerous situation to save a life is nothing short of heroic.  Some times its incredibly stupid but that doesn't change the valor of it all.

I also agree that some direct conversations are in order from the top down.

[Strick]

Medal............ :angel: :angel: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Gunner C]

MEDAL and a handshake from Hawkeye
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[FARRIER]

Medal - As a cadet, was involved in a similar situation, securing the accident scene at a local airport, because we were there for training. Very first Commanders Commendation.

[Mustang]

This is the definition of what the Silver Medal of Valor is for.  Most SMV acts were done with the best of intentions followed by 20/20 vision of "what was I thinking". 

Non-concur. 

While certainly laudable for all the reasons Maj Harris states, the cadets' actions don't rise to the level of valor or heroism in the slightest.  Give 'em an Achievement Award and call it good.

[Al Sayre]

Very public presentation of a medal, along with some discussion of the safety aspects of their actions. 

What we don't know from the article is if they were there helping out at the show as CAP representatives or just as visitors to enjoy the show... That would make a big difference on how this might be viewed "officially".

[sparks]

Eclipse has the right idea, neither medal nor reprimand. Instead a review of who did what and why would be appropriate. As mentioned above, where were the senior leaders? Although this case ended well the next act of unsupervised "heroism" may end badly. Cadet selfless action is a commendable trait but so is seasoned judgment.
If the aircraft had caught firs after throwing switches would the cadet have been blamed?
Bottom line is a disciplined approach to aircraft accidents is safer for all concerned.

[CAPSGT]

Definately a medal.  Read the criteria for the SMOV and the BMOV....you basically are required to violate safety policies in order to earn them.

Now I would talk with the Senior Members present to find out why they were not keeping cadets away while THEY went to do it.

[jimmydeanno]

"Where were the senior leaders?"

What if the cadets were the only ones in the group with ES experience, or one was the GTL on scene?  I know plenty of seniors that wouldn't know what to do in those situations...

EDIT: Isn't the cadet named in the article a member of this board? [screenname: cadet zimmerman]

[Airrace]

Medal

[blackrain]

Medal AND a very thorough AAR.

I guess we all suffer from "movie hero syndrome" That's where we see the movie hero do exactly the right thing at exactly the right time for the exactly desired effect. At the same time we expect that in the real world.

I think that is what makes it hard on some deployed troops who second guess split second decisions made downrange. By themselves OR others. It's very easy to do.

[Eclipse]

"Where were the senior leaders?"

What if the cadets were the only ones in the group with ES experience, or one was the GTL on scene?

Then they should not have been there at all.  A cadet may be functioning as a GTL, but cadets are never in charge of themselves.

[jimmydeanno]

Then they should not have been there at all.  A cadet may be functioning as a GTL, but cadets are never in charge or themselves.

My point in that situation is that scenario is that the GTL could have had "senior supervision" that didn't have the slightest clue about how to handle an accident scene.  Therefore, the senior knows that the cadet has training.

It's the same as me telling a Cadet MP how to fly the plane, even though I'm not a pilot. 

But in this particular case, the article makes note of the cadets father, who sounds like he's a member, praising the cadets for their action.  So, senior supervision covered.  Public and newspapers think they did a good job.

Give them a medal and call it a day.

[IceNine]

This is the definition of what the Silver Medal of Valor is for.  Most SMV acts were done with the best of intentions followed by 20/20 vision of "what was I thinking". 

Non-concur. 

While certainly laudable for all the reasons Maj Harris states, the cadets' actions don't rise to the level of valor or heroism in the slightest.  Give 'em an Achievement Award and call it good.

I think I would strongly disagree with you but then I realized that no matter what happened, we really don't know.

Based off of the very detail poor article we can only assume.  I am sure in short order CAP commander's at all levels will be reviewing this for medal/award/reprimand.

[FW]

From the story given, I think the cadets did a good job.  However, I agree that a very intensive AAR and debrief be done before any other actions are taken.

[James Shaw]

I would put this in for the highest thing possible and let them decide on things after that.

[a2capt]

I'm willing to bet Dollars to SAREX Doughnuts that the story is written stupidly and grossly misrepresents most of what happened. Typical braindead sensationalism scoopism journalism moron material.

With that said, I agree. Put it in for the highest thing possible and let them sort it out. Why? because thats how the system works.

Something good happened there, people were on their toes. Let them get recognized for their actions and use that as inspiration for the rest and let it show that our system works.

[Flying Pig]

A thourough review of the incident is required before any medals should be awarded.  Especially a BMoV or SMoV.

As far as putting for the highest medal, I dont agree with that.  Following that criteria, we would put everyone in for the SMoV.  Its up to the commander or designee to conduct the review of the scene and then crack open the books and put them in for the appropriate medal.

[James Shaw]

A thourough review of the incident is required before any medals should be awarded.  Especially a BMoV or SMoV.

As far as putting for the highest medal, I dont agree with that.  Following that criteria, we would put everyone in for the SMoV.  Its up to the commander or designee to conduct the review of the scene and then crack open the books and put them in for the appropriate medal.

My suggestion is to put them in for the highest possible that does not mean necessarily the SMV, BMV, or Life Save. That means they should objectively look at the circumstances surrounding this and put them in for what they feel is warranted. If I were involved in this I would treat these as seperate incidences. Look at the safety factor as a seperate part from the act itself. They need to be approached individually and treated individually.

[Ranger75]

Inferring facts from a single photo and the content of a brief media piece is hardly sufficient for a commander to take action, either with an award or a reprimand.  I would hope that in evaluating the circumstances, any commander would seek out multiple witnesses to the events, to include those directly involved in the actions, prior to formulating a command response.  I know that, if I were in the position to review a recommendation for either recognition or condemnation, one based solely on the scant information provided, the request would be returned without action and a firm suggestion to do the appropriate legwork before resubmitting. 

[Eclipse]

I know that, if I were in the position to review a recommendation for either recognition or condemnation, one based solely on the scant information provided, the request would be returned without action and a firm suggestion to do the appropriate legwork before resubmitting.

+1

[Rotorhead]

This is the definition of what the Silver Medal of Valor is for.  Most SMV acts were done with the best of intentions followed by 20/20 vision of "what was I thinking". 

Non-concur. 

While certainly laudable for all the reasons Maj Harris states, the cadets' actions don't rise to the level of valor or heroism in the slightest. 

I agree; to do so would dilute the meaning of the SMV.

[Spike]

Medal. 

Wait 2 Months....mandatory Safety Tests, Multiple ORM courses added and Safety SOP amended making it prohibitory for Cadet to be around places where Airplanes can have accidents.

So, how long until we have a mandatory Safety down Month??

[ZigZag911]

!) Investigate facts
2) AAR & safety discussion with all present at activity
3) Appropriate recognition based on circumstances as determined by investigation  (medal of some sort, even if only achievement)

[smitjud]

Incidentally, where are the senior members? 

Given my experience with local news outlets here and the tendency to be misquoted and their lack of understanding of the organization, the "senior cadets" mentioned by the article were likely actually senior members.  Despite repeated explanations otherwise, some of out local news outlets still think that every CAP member, regardless of age is a cadet and are completely oblivious to the distinction between cadet and senior member.

[sparks]

The CAP unit providing assistance to the young eagle flights should have the facts. Based on those facts I hope the squadron and wing will take the appropriate action, whatever that is.
AvWeb had a picture and synopsis of the event in its news page today. The accident aircraft looked like a Grumman Tiger. It was upright, in the grass approaching a slight slope and appeared relatively undamaged. Since all sides of the aircraft weren't shown it may have damage on the other side.

[wingnut55]

Well ask the Fire Department what they think??

I think that as a school administrator an adult would be losing their Job.

As a former Cadet who has done the same thing!! Medal in public and chew butt later.

GOOD JOB
:clap:

[Johnny Yuma]

I'm not a huge fan of medals, but definitely some ATTABOYS are in order.

First off, the guy on the wing in the picture looks like a Senior member, not a cadet.

Second, I suspect it was an ELT that was being turned off, not transponders. The media (short of the APOA magazine) believes the ELT to be some sort of emergency transponder. Killing fuel switches and battery power is not only prudent but well thought.

To take dramatic license from a Clint Eastwood movies of the 80's:

A few young CAP firepissers took a little initiative, and kicked ASS!

[heliodoc]

Johnny

You da man!!

Haven't seen a response since you wrote that hard hitting commentary

Luv it!!

[Eclipse]

Of interesting note is that the cadet in question decided to take it upon himself to post comments under the story.

This is now being held out by my Region as an example of "don't".

[CadetProgramGuy]

Of interesting note is that the cadet in question decided to take it upon himself to post comments under the story.

This is now being held out by my Region as an example of "don't".

Now see what you did, you made me go look....

Sir, the basic principle of the Civil Air Patrol is make sure everyone is OK then make sure the ELT is turned off. I have had first responder training as well crash response training. I DID debrief the kids that were involved and get there side of what happened because That is part of my job, I did not have to check on the pilot because the flight nurses from CALSTAR were taking care of him. We are trained to get ALL safety hazards taken care of I.E fuel off, ELT off, controls locked, Mags off fuel pump off. So Please note Sir I did make sure the kids were taken care of.

[Eclipse]

That's not the comment in question.

He made a statement regarding the cause of the crash, which then generated a number of comments regarding the competency of the pilot, the safety of GA, etc. 

He then followed up and retracted it because he had no actual knowledge of the situation.

This is a textbook case of "issues", end-to-end.  From the one view its a CAP success story, from another its  procedural violations all over the place, and from a third its members hurt or worse.

[Flying Pig]

I think the cadet took some awesome initiative.  If the paramedics were already working on the passengers, then I would assume the scene was safe.  It seems like the cadet went over to the plane and shut everything down.  However, being that an EMS flight crew was already there Im wondering why they wouldnt have done it?

[Майор Хаткевич]

I was going to say, no matter what the truth was, the cadet's comments on the story just made it all look a lot worse...

[ZigZag911]

Commenting on accident causes is an unfortunate error that even many seniors make....this is an area of training that needs constant reinforcement.

However, it's easy to Monday morning quarterback...based on the limited information provided here, it seems likely the cadets on the scene felt the AC's occupants might be in mortal peril, and responded appropriately.

[Spike]

^ I don't think so.  It appears the Cadets ran over after others ran over and were working on the pilot/victims. 

Some have noted it may be a case of "hero syndrome". 

Either way the Cadet should not have posted comments, he needs reprimanded, no matter what his Dad posted after him. 

I take back my "award a medal" vote.  They should have a stern lecture instead. 

[Eclipse]

^ I don't think so.  It appears the Cadets ran over after others ran over and were working on the pilot/victims. 

Some have noted it may be a case of "hero syndrome". 

This is my 50k foot assessment as well...

Something else no one has asked is whether or not these cadets were qualified to even be there at all.
FLM?  GT?  A uniform and CAP ID does not qualify you for anything but meeting attendance.  Perhaps some of the issue is they haven't completed any training, so they don't know the rules.

If this isn't a lesson in "perception = reality" I don't know what is.  Somewhere between the medal and the reprimand lies the truth.

[lordmonar]

We also need to seperate the "actionable event" from the "actionable after event".

The action of, right or wrong, running into harms way to try to do good and getting away with it, is one thing to consider.

The action of going onto a public forum and remarking about the probable cause of the accident is something else that needs to be addressed seperately.

Let's keep these two events as distinct as possible and deal with them appropriatly.

Medal (maybe...depends of the level of danger, risk to life, etc) for the one, and a stern lecture about what not to say on the internet for the other.

[JayT]

I think the cadet took some awesome initiative.  If the paramedics were already working on the passengers, then I would assume the scene was safe.  It seems like the cadet went over to the plane and shut everything down.  However, being that an EMS flight crew was already there Im wondering why they wouldnt have done it?

How many EMT's really know much about air plane operations, even FP-C's?

[Major Carrales]

It was an "imminently serious condition," one of the few caveats that allow for things like violation of private property (remember your GES training)  The cadets should be commended.  We train cadets to be good citizens and foster a responsibility within them, to punish them for having lived those elements negates any and all concepts and precepts we hold.

MEDAL

[heliodoc]

YEP

Come here to CAPTalk for your dose of punishment....Alll the don'ts, we're "gonna" slap this on you , read this reg to you, ETC

WE all were not there and in the REAL scheme of things...HOW are you CAPTalkers who can cite regs, going to react in a REAL world emergency??  Can't say how I'd react in all situations...

Let's see what really happens in the long term

[RiverAux]

I don't know if anyone is still reading the comments on the newspapers web page, but apparently the cadet was asked by the fire department to shut off the fuel switch for safety reasons.   What sort of fireman asks a kid to do something like that?  The firemen at least should have known the proper course of action was to move people away from the site.  And why would a cadet take an order from a fireman anyway? 

Apparently they took it upon themselves to turn off the ELT and apparently flip a bunch of other switches as well. 

And it seems like other medical personnel were on scene to take care of the people. 

So, lacking further info there seems to be no reason for any cadet to have entered this plane. 

[Eclipse]

What sort of fireman asks a kid to do something like that?  The firemen at least should have known the proper course of action was to move people away from the site.  And why would a cadet take an order from a fireman anyway? 

The ability of members to say "no", even though they know they are supposed to seems to be in inverse proportion to how "cool or neat" the thing they are bing told to do is.

(And that goes for the staffers at higher HQ's who, rather than redirect someone to their local chain, take action based on requests they shouldn't even be entertaining...)

[lordmonar]

Again...there is a lot of monday morning quarterbacking going on here.

Right wrong or indifferent.....The actions of these cadets bring credit upon themselves and Civil Air Patrol.

[RiverAux]

I don't believe they've brought discredit upon CAP and it certainly is good publicity (which is why they will probably end up getting some sort of award). 

But, that doesn't necessarily mean they did the right thing, either in reality or in the world of CAP regulation and policy. 

Like I said before, if they were diving in that plane to shut off the fuel so as to safely remove the passengers, I wouldn't hesitate to give them an award, but as that point of danger was apparently long gone, such action was not necessary. 

But, lets expand out this discussion a bit.....

It has not been unusualfor CAP to be asked to go shut off ELTs in airplanes flipped around at airports after a tornado or hurricane.  Usually this is a day or two after the event.  One could say that there is still some potential fire danger associated with these planes.  Should we be sending cadets (or seniors for that matter) to crawl around in these wrecks trying to turn off ELTs? 

Since there is no one's life in immediate danger, I wonder if it is something we should be involved in? 

Sure, getting the ELTs turned off so as to avoid masking a real emergency is legit, but is it legit for us?  After all, AFRCC doesn't like us looking for people that are in all liklihood dead and tends to call us off when a mission goes to search and recovery. 

[Eclipse]

It has not been unusualfor CAP to be asked to go shut off ELTs in airplanes flipped around at airports after a tornado or hurricane.  Usually this is a day or two after the event.  One could say that there is still some potential fire danger associated with these planes.  Should we be sending cadets (or seniors for that matter) to crawl around in these wrecks trying to turn off ELTs? 

It should be.

CAP doesn't deactivate an ELT, it locates them, and informs the owner, only entering the aircraft with permission, and generally its better if either an FBO mechanic or the owner deactivates the ELT.

If we're being directed to just turn them off, we're probably breaking the law.

[flyerthom]

We also need to seperate the "actionable event" from the "actionable after event".

The action of, right or wrong, running into harms way to try to do good and getting away with it, is one thing to consider.

The action of going onto a public forum and remarking about the probable cause of the accident is something else that needs to be addressed seperately.

Let's keep these two events as distinct as possible and deal with them appropriatly.

Medal (maybe...depends of the level of danger, risk to life, etc) for the one, and a stern lecture about what not to say on the internet for the other.

They are two distinct events. For the first - medal or attaboy, let the commanders sort it out.

For the second - the entire next length of time for promotion they are sentenced to be squadron PAO or mod Captalk.  Yes I know that's stern but ...     

[Krapenhoeffer]

And why would a cadet take an order from a fireman anyway?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but if I learned my Incident Command System correctly, it would make sense for the firefighter to be the Incident Commander, and it would be perfectly understandable to ask a cadet to flip some switches to prevent what may have been a massive explosion, and for said cadet to obey this command.

Once again, posting in a public fourm about a mission (double standard for CAPTalk much?) is a bad idea, and should warrant a stern CPP-friendly Wall-to-Wall counciling session.

[NCRblues]

Posting about a mission is bad? HOW? CPP? The cadet's names were never mentioned and no pictures of the minor cadets were put into print without parental permission...so how was cpp violated?

[Ozzy]

And why would a cadet take an order from a fireman anyway?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but if I learned my Incident Command System correctly, it would make sense for the firefighter to be the Incident Commander, and it would be perfectly understandable to ask a cadet to flip some switches to prevent what may have been a massive explosion, and for said cadet to obey this command.

Once again, posting in a public fourm about a mission (double standard for CAPTalk much?) is a bad idea, and should warrant a stern CPP-friendly Wall-to-Wall counciling session.

However this was not a 'mission' where cap was under the fire department (Assumed due to the nature of the incident), nor was the cadet qualified (As per eServices) to perform such an action, and as such, was not a resource had the fire department been the ICS.


NCRblues- Don't you know about OPSEC? There's a reason why it's required... this is why. When false or incorrect information is given (As was here), legal proceedings could be affected. Before any info about a mission or event is given, it should be run through the PIO or PAO

[NCRblues]

However this was not a 'mission' where cap was under the fire department (Assumed due to the nature of the incident), nor was the cadet qualified (As per eServices) to perform such an action, and as such, was not a resource had the fire department been the ICS.


NCRblues- Don't you know about OPSEC? There's a reason why it's required... this is why. When false or incorrect information is given (As was here), legal proceedings could be affected. Before any info about a mission or event is given, it should be run through the PIO or PAO
[/quote]

First off, what qualifications in eservices are you speaking about? I would also like to ask how you looked this up on eservices, because your profile says NY, so you would not have accesses to California personnel. Second, opsec in cap is way overplayed. Yes cadet, i do know about opsec, i am active duty air force so we get the training. Can you point out the "false or incorrect" information to me? and if you can, how do you verify it? Were you their? Is cap personnel supposed to stand their wile the fire department and others speak about an incident and when they come to the cap member, simply state sorry can't talk about it, opsec? What a joke, take opsec with a grain of salt. If you are on the scene of an accident, and fire rescue is there, they have command, watch how fast you and cap gets thrown off the scene if you refuse to do what the fire rescue officials ask. A fire rescue official would never put children in harm's way, they are trained professionals, and so if the fire rescuse official asked the cadet to do anything, it was safe.

[davidsinn]

Anybody can look up the ES quals on anyone else. For example I just looked up Maj. Gen. Courter. In eServices on the left side click "My Ops quals/Natl reports" then click national reports on the top and in the dropdown select "mbr qual info report".

When the cadet talked to the press he should have only told what he directly observed and not speculated at all.

For example: "I saw the aircraft make a forced landing and slide off the runway stopping upright. When I got there ... I observed ... I helped with ... etc"

Talking to the press is fine as long as you are careful what and how you say things. Never speculate.

[EMT-83]

Unless you are the Incident Commander, or have been authorized by the Incident Commander to speak on his behalf, the proper response to the press is always, "You'll need to obtain that information from [insert name or title here]."

It is not the position of the average CAP member, police officer, firefighter, etc. to make statements to the press.

[RiverAux]

Yes, ICS does allow CAP to "work for" other agenices.  However, at no point is someone from another agency going to be able to give any sort of order to a cadet.  Now, if the fire dept asked a CAP senior member to help in this incident and then that senior member asked a cadet to do it, that would be how it should have been done.  Though, of course I'm not sure I would agree with a CAP senior member directing a cadet to do this sort of action either.

[heliodoc]

^^^^^

More reason for CAP to start adopting the ICS mechanisms.  If CAP does not adopt to the new world training standards and stop worrying about its CPPT, questioning actions of both cadets and seniors and reemphasize talking to the press....the real responders are probably going to dismiss us.

"oh wait a minute, Mr First Responder, let me call my chain of command first, AFRCC to get a mission number, and get a PIO/ PAO here first before I can do anything...."


I see a problem here, anyway.  Just like any incident, there will always be Monday morning quarterbacking.  We can  beat up the cadet and seniors about this alll we want.  But in the real world of ICS and getting the mission safely done, No matter how it gets done, who does it isn't going to matter.

Let's see a TRUE mission AAR in LLIS.gov    The First Responder world would get a charge out of all this.  Granted CAP has its mechanisms, they are not the end all, in real world incidents.

Whether or not CAP procedure was followed or not, people reacted to their minimum level of training (an assumption here).  But when the real world goes up CAP "procedure" will be last thing adhered to when it comes to life safety, property protection , and resource protection.

Sure there were mistakes made, in the real world there are plenty.  Time for some CAP re-education when it needs working with the press....BOTH seniors and cadets. 

CAPTalk..... where a 2B is imminent for any action and  where second guessing are commonplace

[EMT-83]

I've held off on commenting, because we really don't have all the facts. However, there were a few remarks posted here that prompted me to write.

Based on the limited information available, it sounds like everyone involved did one heck of a job and took care of business. Agencies that have probably never worked or trained with each other before, got together, came up with a plan and handled the incident.

Would the fire department ask Civil Air Patrol to shut off the fuel? I bet they would, because the average firefighter has never seen the inside of a small plane, and doesn't know what a fuel switch looks like. Should they have turned off the ELT? Yes, of course they should have.

I don't know about a medal. Again, we don't have all the facts. Fortunately, the members involved didn't sit back and compare 101 cards. They worked as a team and got the job done. Outstanding.

[JayT]

Yes, ICS does allow CAP to "work for" other agenices.  However, at no point is someone from another agency going to be able to give any sort of order to a cadet.  Now, if the fire dept asked a CAP senior member to help in this incident and then that senior member asked a cadet to do it, that would be how it should have been done.  Though, of course I'm not sure I would agree with a CAP senior member directing a cadet to do this sort of action either.

"At no point is someone from another agency going to be able to give any sort of order to a cadet."

Really? So cadets aren't really qualifed members?

If CAP wants to play emergency services, and give more then lip service to ICS, then it needs to start working with others.

[Eclipse]

"At no point is someone from another agency going to be able to give any sort of order to a cadet."

Really? So cadets aren't really qualifed members?

If CAP wants to play emergency services, and give more then lip service to ICS, then it needs to start working with others.

1) Cadets are never allowed to be supervised or under the command of non-CAP personnel.

B) Generally, any support provided to another agency is done in a manner which leaves CAP personnel
under the command and supervision of a CAP chain of command, which in turn is operating under the direction of the other agency.  Rarely if ever is / should CAP working directly for a leader from another agency, if for no other reason than we have more strict rules about what we are allowed to do than other similar support organizations.

(This is where Helio will insert 14 smiles and some devil horns, etc.   )

[heliodoc]

^^^^^

Affirmative, sir

Themann hits it on the head again........ IF CAP wants to play ES then it HAS to learn to play with others  in the big world.

Good for our strict "rules."  Governed by "risk averse" personnel with a penchant for going overboard on ORM and safety.  That in itself, guarantees one thing for CAP ........it's still ok to to SDIS, ARCHER, MRE handout, and sand bag  detail.   Guarantees, as of right now, some reasons DHS and HLS missions may not be served on our plate.  CAP can safely be assured it place as support only then and not first response mode in many a constraint with its its so called ROE

So how is that HR 1178 Comptroller General study going for CAP?  Hope our "rules" do not get in the way for CAP's wishes for more involvement in DHS type missions.  Maybe their lawyers will have to do lunch with our  lawyers to get  a "real set" (pardon the pun) of rules for operations in the real world and more reason for CAP to tout how much we can save the US Govt yet need more of a standardized sets of training and credentialing to really work seamlessly with and in DHS missions.

My button won't work  for smileys this hour

[NCRblues]

So you're trying to tell me cap personnel don't answer to other on scene commanders?   So, let's say another Katrina like hurricane hits Louisiana again, and marshal law is declared, to maintain order, and cap is asked by fema, the National Guard and the air force to help, you're telling me we don't have to listen to the authorities put in place by the governor, oh if it's that bad by the president? Give me a break, go ahead and tell the fire marshal of a state or police chief or fema emergency manager you're not ganna follow his rules see what happens. This is why cap always plays secound fiddle even though we could play with the big boys

[Майор Хаткевич]

So you're trying to tell me cap personnel don't answer to other on scene commanders?   So, let's say another Katrina like hurricane hits Louisiana again, and marshal law is declared, to maintain order, and cap is asked by fema, the National Guard and the air force to help, you're telling me we don't have to listen to the authorities put in place by the governor, oh if it's that bad by the president? Give me a break, go ahead and tell the fire marshal of a state or police chief or fema emergency manager you're not ganna follow his rules see what happens. This is why cap always plays secound fiddle even though we could play with the big boys

Or...it's because before we CAN play, the requesting agency needs to contact our chain of command at the appropriate level...

[Eclipse]

So you're trying to tell me cap personnel don't answer to other on scene commanders?   So, let's say another Katrina like hurricane hits Louisiana again, and marshal law is declared, to maintain order, and cap is asked by fema, the National Guard and the air force to help, you're telling me we don't have to listen to the authorities put in place by the governor, oh if it's that bad by the president? Give me a break, go ahead and tell the fire marshal of a state or police chief or fema emergency manager you're not ganna follow his rules see what happens. This is why cap always plays secound fiddle even though we could play with the big boys.

Your example makes no sense.

As civilians we are bound to follow any legal declarations respective to our circumstance, however since we are neither military, nor part of a civil authority, individuals cannot be "activated" on the spot, as might be the case with someone who is PD/FD or in the military.

If we are involved, we always report to CAP's chain of command.  Individual assets are never under the command of anyone else.  We might work under operational control of some other agency, but the command is always with CAP.

As an example, if we're working for the National Guard, and an NG team leader says "stand here", and CAP says "go home", we go home.

The cadet rules are self-explanatory.

For the record, marshal law was never declared in LA or MS, it was a "state of emergency", which is basically the same thing, but lawyers and constitutional scholars would argue differently. 

[NCRblues]

So then, let's say you're on scene, you're the highest ranking cap person there, but you're not the incident commander, let's say, oh fema director is. He/she comes up to you and says hey as Incident commander I need you and your troops to do this, you say, wait hold on I need to contact my chain of command? Isn't that what the ICS was designed to go around? So all chains of command, in an emergency, are consolidated?

[Eclipse]

So then, let's say you're on scene, you're the highest ranking cap person there, but you're not the incident commander, let's say, oh fema director is. He/she comes up to you and says hey as Incident commander I need you and your troops to do this, you say, wait hold on I need to contact my chain of command? Isn't that what the ICS was designed to go around? So all chains of command, in an emergency, are consolidated?

All chains of command are not, by any means, consolidated, just because ICS is in place.  The existing command structures fall into the overall plan as per MOU's, SOP's, and common sense.  Police and fire, for example, still report to their own chains, with the top personnel assigned to the specific incident reporting in as part of the ICS structure as team leaders, area managers, etc.

If CAP is not officially involved, neither are you, even if you are HEADCAP.  If CAP is involved, you take direction from the CAP chain, not some random FEMA person doing an Al Haig.

In CAP you aren't "on Scene" just because you are there.  If it doesn't have a mission number attached, we're not playing, and if it does, you should be well aware of who the IC is, and what the SOP is regarding working with other agencies. 

If you, as a cadet, find yourself to be the ranking person "on scene"...you go home.

[Ned]

As civilians we are bound to follow any legal declarations respective to our circumstance, however since we are neither military, nor part of a civil authority, individuals cannot be "activated" on the spot, as might be the case with someone who is PD/FD or in the military.

Minor legal quibble:  PD/FD folks are just as much "civlilian" as we are.  IOW, a cop can refuse to obey an order and go home, just like any CAP member.  The cop will not go to jail for that, but will almost certainly lose their job.  (Again, just like a CAP member - we can refuse to obey a commander's directive, but will face the consequences in terms of CAP "discipline."

/quibble

[NCRblues]

I am saying that cap is playing, as in with a mission number, so the highest cap person their goes to the incident commander to get orders

[Spike]

Many Wings develop MOU's for instances that are being referenced hypothetically. 

[vento]

So then, let's say you're on scene, you're the highest ranking cap person there, but you're not the incident commander, let's say, oh fema director is. He/she comes up to you and says hey as Incident commander I need you and your troops to do this, you say, wait hold on I need to contact my chain of command? Isn't that what the ICS was designed to go around? So all chains of command, in an emergency, are consolidated?

When CAP is involved, members work under the CAP IC system (which is very similar to the FEMA system but only CAP), and the CAP IC in turn is part of the big game.

CAP IC is in the same level as the other agencies as an asset. CAP members only mobilize under CAP IC, not FEMA IC. I know it's a bit confusing, but that's how the system works. At least that's how it works in California.

[C/MSgt Lunsford]

I'm going to go ahead and say Medal. Yet they entered a crash site without a Senior Member being present, they were doing their duty, and saving lives. Is that not what CAP is all about? Are we supposed to just watch and do nothing? No. We need to control the situation and try to rescue a person that has just fallen victim to an accident. Alot of time Regs are just thrown out the door, but I believe it was necessary for those Cadets to do what they did. For that I applaud them on their Heroism.  :clap: :clap: :clap: Though they should have made sure those Civilians stood back from the wreckage.

[Spike]

I know it's a bit confusing, but that's how the system works. At least that's how it works in California.

That's your problem right there.  You are from California.....but California CAP does it's own thing in regards to almost everything!

[Eclipse]

I am saying that cap is playing, as in with a mission number, so the highest cap person their goes to the incident commander to get orders

No, the people who are qualified to act in an operational command role take the orders.

Unlike the military, grade in and of itself confers zee-ro operational authority.

In the case of a large mission situation, unless you are an IC or an AL, you don't belong in the ICP taking
taskings for CAP, because for starters you don't have the authority to commit resources. (the exception maybe being, state directors or corporate officers, and then only in coordination with the NOC)

Vento has it spot-on.

[Spike]

^ State Directors can commit Corporate Resources??

[Eclipse]

^ State Directors can commit Corporate Resources??

I said "maybe".  They are nearly always involved in real mission activity on some level, and I'm hypothesizing a situation where for some reason there's no IC but CAP still needs to be involved.  Rare would be the case, and I'm not saying its a good idea, but since on the CAP side what and who can commit
our toys is up to us and CAP-USAF, no one on the receiving end of help would complain.

[Ozzy]

First off, if you are on the scene as a CAP member, then you are a resource of CAP, NOT FEMA. You do what ever CAP Mission Base tells you to do. If an IC of whatever asks you to do something, verify with Mission base before proceeding.

But if an IC needs to get something done, they go through their resources, or if out of that, through the agency Liaison officer who'll talk to your CoC to take you. Then if approved, then you do what he says as long as its within your responsibilities and training (i.e. if they ask you to run into a burning building... don't do it unless you are there as a fire-fighter, not as a CAP member)

[JayT]

First off, if you are on the scene as a CAP member, then you are a resource of CAP, NOT FEMA. You do what ever CAP Mission Base tells you to do. If an IC of whatever asks you to do something, verify with Mission base before proceeding.

But if an IC needs to get something done, they go through their resources, or if out of that, through the agency Liaison officer who'll talk to your CoC to take you. Then if approved, then you do what he says as long as its within your responsibilities and training (i.e. if they ask you to run into a burning building... don't do it unless you are there as a fire-fighter, not as a CAP member)

And that's the problem. In the real world, CAP can't be off doing it's own thing. With a true incident, there shouldn't be that extra time to communicate with our 'own' incident command.

It seems there's a lot of stories of CAP Incident Commanders contacting 'the' IC of an incident and not understanding the difference.

Maybe more interagency training is in order....

But, in regards to the orginal post, I don't know if a MoV is in order with the information we have, but maybe a ComCom?

[Майор Хаткевич]

For publicity I'd maybe throw in an achievement award, but beyond that...Need More Info!

[ol'fido]

Not going to go to deep into this one as it seems it's getting real deep around here anyway.

Until we know the real or "ground" truth let's not condemn or commend. That's for the chain of these cadet's to decide not the armchair quarterbacks.

One of the tenets of ICS as I understand is that each agency committs their personnel and resources to the incident command but each agency works under there own chain of command at THE TACTICAL LEVEL and under their own rules and regs. If there is a conflict between orders from the IC and agency rules/regs, that should be worked out the Liaison/ IC level or there should be a Unified Command.

[James Shaw]

Anything ever come of this?

[Pumbaa]

"Where were the senior leaders?"

They are fat and fuzzies in corporate grays trying to waddle, weeze and wiggle to the scene!

[flyguy06]

SO, if I were not in CAP amd went over to help those people would that be ok?

[Stonewall]

You are NOT a cadet.  The issue is that cadets did this.  Where were senior members during this event?  There are many more issues and question than just being a "Joe Citizen" vs. CAP member (cadet).

[Eclipse]

SO, if I were not in CAP amd went over to help those people would that be ok?

Don't know, don't care.  The only context that is relevant to this conversation is CAP regs and SOP. 

You can do whatever you want as a private citizen.

[flyguy06]

Whoa. Whats with the attitude? I just  asked a question. I wasnt sure.

[flyboy53]

Medals to both. Good job!