CAP Reputation

[Flying Pig]

So, I was flying an LE mission in an undisclosed area (not Fresno).  I landed and met my observer at the airport in another part of the state.  We met in the pilots lounge to discuss the days mission.  He was actually the air unit Lt. from the agency I was supporting.  Their aircraft was down, so we were assisting.  After the brief, we started making small talk.  Mostly about some recent SAR ops.  He then asks if I have ever used that flying circus knows as Civil Air Patrol.  I decide to lay low, but say I am familiar with them and that we have a unit in Fresno.  Anyway, he lays out his concerns. 
It wasn't about uniforms, physical fitness, flying ability, it was about information sharing and paperwork.  IN fact, he said from what he has seen, CAP actually has a very rigid set of standards to be a pilot.  (Yes and No)
Being a Sheriff, his agency, as we know, is constitutionally responsible for SAR, at least in CA.  He outlined very articulately that in past SARs he could get nothing out of CAP.  No radio freq's, no information on search grids.  As the SAR IC, he said he would talk to the CAP IC, but that they would not allow the Sheriff IC into the CAP Command Post.  He said he was often met with "Sorry Sir, thats OPSEC and we cannot disclose it."  Hmmmm, does that sound familiar?  He said what really torqued him was when he was talking with someone and realized it was the PIO.  Which led me to believe he wasn't making it up.  He said it got to the point that CAP was running their own SAR vs being a resource.  This was a SAR for a lost plane.  He said the CAP IC's were very unapproachable and essentially treated him like he was in the way vs. the Sheriff IC.  And this is a department that has its own Air Unit as well. He said that while he was trying to meet with the CAP staff, they were always excusing themselves to run off to meetings and tapping away on their I-Phones and Blackberries.  He said one morning he and another S.O. sergeant walked in the CAP CP and that a CAP member actually covered the sectional on the wall with a large sheet of white butcher paper so they couldn't see the search grids.

So, some things to be mindful of.  His experiences were strikingly similar to some CAP SAR's I have been on where I have watched CAP ICs an base staff treat people like crap when they ask simple questions vs just taking the time to explain the situation or use some common courtesy in explaining why we may not be able to pass on info instead of just throwing out the work OPSEC and walking away.  I will say, sometimes I think CAP members can keep a secret about nothing better than a CIA Officer sometimes.  (Sorry Paul. at least I didnt say "Agent")

In a nutshell, I finally copped to who I was in my secret life and tried to explain some things to him.  I also let him know that he was 100% free to contact the CAP command staff for CAWG and address his concerns to them and that CAP was full of people 100% willing to give the shirt off their back to assist.  However, like everywhere else, we have our 10% as well.  I am going to be contacting the Sq CC for that area and the Grp CC to make them aware of at least the perception.  As this Lt. has advised that they will not need CAP for anything.   

One thing I thought was interesting to was that his "buddy" who is a cop back east, said their local CAP squadron has a Cessna Caravan and a King Air 350.  He said he couldnt believe that Congress was buying the all volunteer CAP millions upon millions of dollars of turbo prop aircraft and also UAV's for drug interdiction when full time LE was laying off cops.  He was also under the belief that we as CAP has fleet of Jet Rangers also that we did drug interdiction with.  I explained the Predator Program to him, and he relented to me that he misunderstood and thought CAP had the predators.

Anyway, that last part was just pure mis-information.  Amuzing but sad.  It took me a while to convince him that his information was just 100% FALSE in regards to our fleet of King Airs being flown by Private Pilots. However, the first part was the perception of a SAR IC of a rather large Sheriff's Department that has a couple of CAP units in it.  So when you are dealing with people, yes, as volunteers we as CAP members may get treated different by local agencies.  Thats where the quite professional comes in.  Dont let people walk on us, but realize we are just that, volunteers assisting as a resource.  Sometimes we are running the op.  Many times, the local agency is more than willing to give it all to CAP and are greatful.  Other times, we may be assisting agencies who really dont need us or maybe didnt even ask for us.  They are 100% self supporting. You may be assisting a department who just needs you to wait in the corner until you are needed.  Either way, perception is reality sometimes and facts can be irrelevant.  But, his description of how he was treated in the CP were spot on with how I have seen people treated in some of our CP's.

Take it for what its worth.  He was a customer.  Oh, by the way, I mentioned to him that he could be a tremendous asset to his local CAP unit and that his experience would be greatly embraced. 

[bosshawk]

Rob: you remembered the conversation about "agent"-----good.  You and I both remember the search for the missing motor glider and the base staff. 

Folks: what Rob is relating is not fiction: most of that really happened.

[Hawk200]

The issues the individual discussed with you seem to mirror allies' issues with the Air Force in overseas operations. Joint operations, but not a sharing of information.

Under NIMS/ICS, this lack of participation could be a killer for joint operations. Information is supposed to be shared. A subordinate agency that isn't sharing information during an incident isn't a team player. It amazes me that we've got a number of joint operations training and we're getting 800 MHz equipment, but we're not using it in the manner intended. You can dress up like a team, and buy all the equipment if you want; but if you don't act like one, you're worthless.

"I've got a secret" isn't a game to play on missions.

[cap235629]

and we're getting 800 MHz equipment,

Huh?

[Eclipse]

The first class for a 101 card, with monthly refreashers if necessary, should be "CAP's place in the grande scheme."

If there is one place we fail, and where learning would increase out value its right there.

My mantra is "undersell, overproduce, sit quietly, and know your place."

[Hawk200]

The first class for a 101 card, with monthly refreashers if necessary, should be "CAP's place in the grande scheme."

I'll second that, I'd even teach it if we had one. So, how do we go about making one?

[EMT-83]

Death by PowerPoint, then an open-book test.

[FW]

It is really a shame we have that "perception" in CAWG.  I didn't realize there could be 2 IC's for a mission (at the same time).   Oh, well. back to the classroom...

[bosshawk]

Fred: I sincerely wish that it was a "perception".

[JC004]

...
I didn't realize there could be 2 IC's for a mission (at the same time).
...

I don't know how many times I have used those exact words.  It makes my skin crawl (and just did here) hearing the term "CAP IC" (as opposed to the IC of the mission). 

Not only should an IC know about the whole concept behind ICS - especially having ONE command, but that is ICS-100-level stuff.  Isn't that why the Agency Liaison specialty came to be?

I have heard this same sort of thing from other agencies...(never about these crazy aircraft, though)

It is things like this which make CAP irrelevant and make members get fed up.  There isn't a lot of information that can't be shared on a regular SAR mission.  Withholding information from the agency in charge isn't going to make you any friends or get you any more missions.

[RiverAux]

If things happened the way the guy said he did, he has a legit beef.  Given the way things are related about how SAR in CA works, I would be a little surprised that any CAP members have managed to develop that sort of high-handed attitude. 

Now, I do see a way that this could have happened and in which the CAP people may have acted appropriately --- If a CAP base receives a call from out of the blue from someone saying they're with the Podunk Sheriffs Office and need some info about the search, I certainly wouldn't give it to them right then.  I would politely see what info they need and tell them that we're going to get back in touch with them through the sheriff's office published phone number.  Or, if they're on a cell, that we're going to call the sheriff and verify that a person with their name and cell # works for them and is representing them in this case.  Only then would I be open with info. 

After all, this could be a reporter trying to scam info out of them. 

But, if this represents cases where the CAP people knew very well who they were dealing with and acted this way, they weren't doing things right. 

[wuzafuzz]

What a sad story.  Those CAP members had a rare opportunity to sell themselves.  Instead they blew it for themselves and everyone who follows.  It's appalling but not unexpected.  Talk about missed opportunities.  Who knows how many other departments have had their perception of CAP negatively influenced by conversations just like the one Robert shared?  In those cases CAP never gets a chance to prove itself.  I know of agencies holding a "grudge" against CAP for issues that took pace 10-20 years ago. 

"Charm school" should be required of all our IC's and liaisons, if not all senior mission staff.  (Even a freshly minted 2d Lt can do us in under the right circumstances.)  They should be conscious of "selling" CAP in everything they do.  I won't even start with the "CAP IC" versus the real IC and knowing our place in the scheme of things. 

Depending on when the story took place, I can sympathize with the plight of staff being asked for frequency data.  Most of our members have no clue and they have been told it's secret squirrel information. Without a preexisting permission I can see the opportunity for friction there.  Our people think it's forbidden fruit and the sheriff's people probably have no concept of NTIA vs FCC, etc.  Having said that, I'd like to think we could offer a liaison person with a radio, or have "my radio person chat with your radio person."  Chances are the right people could smooth that over and make something work.  I can't think of any reason to withhold anything else from the REAL incident commander, but I'm just a lowly CUL.

[Custer]

Being a Sheriff, his agency, as we know, is constitutionally responsible for SAR, at least in CA.  He outlined very articulately that in past SARs he could get nothing out of CAP.  No radio freq's, no information on search grids.  As the SAR IC, he said he would talk to the CAP IC, but that they would not allow the Sheriff IC into the CAP Command Post.   He said one morning he and another S.O. sergeant walked in the CAP CP and that a CAP member actually covered the sectional on the wall with a large sheet of white butcher paper so they couldn't see the search grids..

I really wish someone else had said that so I could at least think it was an exaggeration.  Beyond that I'm at a loss for words.

[arajca]

As a wing dc, I am one of those responsible for keeping our freq. "secret". That being said, there are enough mutual aid and interoperability channels available that we shouldn't need to share our freqs. HOWEVER, if an IC needs the info, the CAP incident CUL can refer them to me. That takes the CUL out of the problem loop, if it comes up. Most wing dcs should be doing something similar.

For those who say we can just throw a MRO with a radio into their comm unit, remember, we don't always have extra MROs or equipment to do that.

[desertengineer1]

If these statements are accurate, it's a perfect example of what I had feared when the OPSEC mess began - execution.  As I posted numerous times regarding the frequency fiasco, we did an extremely poor job of implementation.  We just threw the rules out and let anyone with a crayon and an imagination interperet the rules as they saw fit.

There's nothing wrong with releasing frequencies to a local agency.  It just needs to be approved, and can be done within a day.  In an emergency, it can be done almost immediately.  It's just a phone call.

There's nothing wrong with showing agencies "The big Board" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-67E9d13_I.

We're supposed to.  If we cannot get that through our thick heads, we shouldn't be doing missions.

What happened to the interoperability thing we all talked about for years?

[wuzafuzz]

For those who say we can just throw a MRO with a radio into their comm unit, remember, we don't always have extra MROs or equipment to do that.

I mentioned that as one possibility among many.  If we have the folks and toys, it's an option.  If not, pursue other options.  My point was there are a variety of ways to handle that scenario within the rules.  All it takes is smarts and a willingness to play well with other children.  Something that was horribly lacking in the story related in the original post.  Frequency data was only a small part of the problem.  It had everything to do with attitude, IMHO.

[wuzafuzz]

There's nothing wrong with showing agencies "The big Board" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-67E9d13_I.

We're supposed to.  If we cannot get that through our thick heads, we shouldn't be doing missions.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Pylon]

Two things fix these types of misperception, misinformation, and bad interactions.

1.  Improved CAP training.  Virtually all of our ES education should include a lot more on interagency operations.  More and more, most of our ops will become interagency, and CAP will be less and less likely to be the overall IC on these ops.  Every specialty qualification should understand what they can and can't do/share/say with regards to outside agencies, and how to treat them on missions. 

Right now, you dn't get a whole lot on what do with interagency stuff until you get to the really high qualifications like IC and Liaisons.   Better education from the ground up = reduction of these types of instances from ignorance.   People in any capacity on ES ops should know how to handle interagency personnel and requests - from the MSA through air and ground crews to the branch-directors and up.   You'll still have people who act like bozos, but every organization has these.   

2.  Improved education of clients and potential clients.  A really nice, well-designed booklet that introduces CAP, shares our actual resources and qualifications, and plainly lays out the procedures for requesting CAP's help  (like a professionally-designed and professionally-rewritten version of the old CAPabilities Handbook) would go a long way to educating other agencies (like Sheriffs and LEOs, state and county EMOs, etc.) and reducing misconceptions about who we are, what we do, and how to use us.

[RADIOMAN015]

As a wing dc, I am one of those responsible for keeping our freq. "secret". That being said, there are enough mutual aid and interoperability channels available that we shouldn't need to share our freqs. HOWEVER, if an IC needs the info, the CAP incident CUL can refer them to me. That takes the CUL out of the problem loop, if it comes up. Most wing dcs should be doing something similar.

For those who say we can just throw a MRO with a radio into their comm unit, remember, we don't always have extra MROs or equipment to do that.

In general the AF as a policy does not release their frequencies to local public safety agencies.  What they do (as with our support AF Reseve Base) is to get radios that will operate on the various public safety mutual aid frequencies in the local area.   They are lucky here because Fire, Police, & Emergency Services all have VHF high band and are cross link capable to UHF & 800 mhz.  So the base didn't have to buy any special equipment.  Our Reserve Base is completely P25 Digital CAI for all intrabase support nets.

HOWEVER, in our state (wing) there's been a march to 800 mhz and even from VHF low band to UHF even in rural areas.  In some many cases there's no cross band readily available.  So CAP likely would need to have some liasion radios with the technical capabilities to operate on UHF & 800 mhz.

I might also add that the State Police Air Wing helicopters & troops patrol vehicles all have radio scanners in their vehicle so it would be possible for them to monitor CAP frequencies (at least in NFM mode), and we with a radio scanner could monitor their frequencies.  So it would be possible to communicate with them IF they knew what frequency we were operating on & we knew what frequency they would answer us on.     There's no issue with them operating on 122.9 or 123.10 mhz multicom if they need to talk air/ground, ground/air with us, but it's unlikely (other than police air divisions) and maybe their mobile command posts (we'll have to ask them on that) having transmit capabilities on aero AM mode.

As far as keeping our frequencies 'secret', it doesn't look like that's been successful because when you transmit an RF signal eventually someone is going to find it.  There appears to be some radio monitoring hobbyist up to that challenge :angel:
RM
           

[blackrain]

As far as keeping our frequencies 'secret', it doesn't look like that's been successful because when you transmit an RF signal eventually someone is going to find it.  There appears to be some radio monitoring hobbyist up to that challenge :angel:
RM
           

Keeping radio traffic secure is more about encryption now than keeping the frequencies secret. That said we have a saying downrange "who else needs to know". A lot of the information is perishable and if it isn't given in a TIMELY manner to those who can use it it is worthless. I admit it is a balancing act (need to know vs keeping it secret)that can keep you up nights while you are downrange but it's call that has to be made continuously. In a perfect world it would be easy.

I think some of this lesson applies here. Use good judgment is the best I can tell you.