Feds restrict volunteers at disasters

[DNall]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070901/ap_on_re_us/disaster_ids

We talked about this a lot when I was around more in the spring. Seems the smart card ID thing is becoming a reality, and CAP needs very much not to get left behind... which in turn means our training & certification standards are going to have to be standardized with professional responders (which is the whole point of the card system). I know this is going to hurt for a lot of people, but I for one welcome the challenge & think I'll like the CAP we become when we've overcome it. You can be pessimistic if you like though.

[IceNine]

Its about Time!!!

I'm just about tired of carrying around CAPID, Driver's license, 101, 76, 60's, ROA, etc just because we can't take the time to utilize "advanced" technology.

[Eclipse]

This article has nothing to do with organized agencies like CAP.

This is a story about  people who cowboyed it to NYC or Katrina and got bent when they made an issue of it.

Uniformed agencies with federally-issued credentials are not in the same class or situation.

[RiverAux]

Well, the examples they used were the untrained volunteers, but it is just such identification that would keep CAP from being lumped in with them.  I have strong reservations about such a national system being very workable, but agree with it in principle. 

[DNall]

Uniformed agencies with federally-issued credentials are not in the same class or situation.

Okay, that's fine. Problem is we don't have federally issued credentials & we're not about to start getting these new ones cause we aren't actually qualified to do jack crap.

We've refused to update our training, and understandablly so. Fact is, you put in a PT test, outside administered skills test, and academic work, and then you require regular intensive re-training to stay current to a minimum skill level required of paid professionals... that puts  abig chunck of the ES force ont he shelf. You're talking national guard is as to regular army as CAP is to full time paid first response rescue workers. That means gear, skills, training, personal & team capabilities, the whole thing.

Is there a theoretical way to get CAP in that ballpark? Cause that's the standard for getting these cards & not having them as an organization is close to a death senetence, on ES anyway & in combination iwith ever increasing tech on the ELT front.

[RiverAux]

C'mon Dnall, you know that the standards you're talking about are still in draft form and it would be stupid for CAP to start changing its regulations around significantly yet.  We haven't refused to do anything.  We can't adopt something that isn't final yet. 

Could we be more aggressive about requiring a few of the things that are very obviously going to be required (the ICS courses)?  Sure. 

[IceNine]

Yep, we use the NASAR Training requirements for what we can. 

NIMS/ICS for others,

And we supplement (which as we know means only making more strict, not deleting items) training where needed to meet the demands of our particular unique skill set of electronic searches

[Eclipse]

The skills we have and train with today are ABSOLUTELY 100% appropriate to the types of missions we perform and the people we have to perform them.

We sell ourselves as one agency to another, based on existing skillsets.

We are not first responders, are not supposed to be first responders, and therefore do not need the training first responders require.

In my ID carrier I have a regular and photo ID from the agency I work for, which, according to the agency I work for, is enough.

[Eclipse]

As a matter of fact, we were heavily involved in the ramp-up for Hurricane Dean in Southern Texas, and were cited as an agency which was part of the solution.

Thanks to the continued dedication and hard work of a number of our members, we already are in the ballpark and will remain there as long as we continue to perform.

[Eclipse]

Uniformed agencies with federally-issued credentials are not in the same class or situation.

Okay, that's fine. Problem is we don't have federally issued credentials & we're not about to start getting these new ones cause we aren't actually qualified to do jack crap. 

Saying it doesn't make it true, agenda or not.

I have no idea what the ops temp in your area is like, but I have done plenty of work for outside agencies in the last two years, and I and my members are qualified to everything the organization is authorized to do.

Anything more requires radical shift of the nature and purpose of CAP.  A shift I am not personally in favor of.

I think we can all agree that the core of the ENTIRE problem in CAP is the inability of our senior members to drill properly.

[DNall]

Some of it's draft, some of it isn't, some of it is done & awaiting final approval & if it changes at all would be very minor. Meantime, the whole emer resp world (volunteers included) are changing in the direction of those standards so they make the cut when the time comes.

CAP faces some real big problems, two in particular I'd draw your attention to. First is the nature of our membership: volunteer, too many out of shape for real field work, limited funding, lack of leadership foundation to drive the change/transition... etc.  Second, we started out much further away from those professional qualification standards than did the other organizations (paid or otherswise) who focus exclusively on that topic. We have a VERY long way to go & the initial transition can be VERY crippling, moreso if done too quickly. Right now we're just giving time cause it's not comfortable to make those changes & we don't want to lose people, but eventually we'll be forced down that road or out of the ES business. I think if you wait too long, waste too much of that time, then the wall becomes overwhelming to climb. Better to start further back & use a legitimate trajectory to get you over. At this point though, with these cards coming on, that's the base of the wall where we're forced to sink or swim.

I see this smart card program as potentially the critical turning point that forces CAP to man up & be what it's always claimed to be, maybe a even a bit more, or to quit pretending & get out of the way so real rescuers can get by. I think it'll either kill ES all together or it'll be the greatest thing that's ever happened to CAP ES; and I think that choice is up to CAP to make but it has to be 100% decisive, and you know very well where I stand.

[IceNine]

C'mon Dnall, you know that the standards you're talking about are still in draft form and it would be stupid for CAP to start changing its regulations around significantly yet.  We haven't refused to do anything.  We can't adopt something that isn't final yet. 

Could we be more aggressive about requiring a few of the things that are very obviously going to be required (the ICS courses)?  Sure. 

Since when has CAP EVER worried about things being set in stone before putting them into play

Prime example...As of such and such date all wideband only radios will be non-compliant.  No other NTIA organization is transitioning, and we don't have narrowband frequencies but you can't use them

[DNall]

Eclipse, forgive me my friend, I appreciate what you guys have & are doing. As you well know, I've got quite a bit of real ES work under my belt too, and have had the chance to work with plenty of other folks. That said....

Driving around neighborhoods a week after a storm to conduct surveys is important to someone somewherem, but it's not exactly in the rescue category. Front end disaster assessment to direct deployment of federal rescue assets, that's we used to & are supposed to still be doing. Requiring real EMTs & letting them work, actually rescuing people... the absolute tip of the spear. We've done little snippets of that kind since 9/11, but it certainly hasn't been the mainstay.

To me, the standard is FEMA-WSAR, plus swiftwater from NASAR, and of course appropriate leadership/experience... I'll stipulate for the sake of argument that your people are there. You'd agree though I'm sure that the rest of CAP is not, not remotely close in fact.

This ID thing is an attempt by the feds to force out posers & the un/under-trained. CAP will have to work real hard to be above that line & that end-state org is one I'll be proud to be part of. I believe this program forces that issue one way or another, and this is me calling on CAP to step up.

[Eclipse]

CAP hasn't been in the "rescue" business for a LOOOONNNGGGGG time.

When you don't have people on ready standby, you are not in the rescue business.

[IceNine]

CAP Great for all of your Search and Rescue Recover Missions...

When being there in time isn't important

[Eclipse]

Again, we are 2nd and 3rd responders by design - backfilling and assisting other agencies
who are better equipped and trained for a different >part< of the mission.

We have our place and our piece, we're part-time people and our place in the hierarchy reflects that.

It doesn't make our place less important, but we need to accept what it is.

[RiverAux]

I guess the 50-100 people who AFRCC credits us with saving every year must be zombies since we obviously only recovered them and didn't rescue them. 

[ZigZag911]

It seems to me there is a reason so many of these first responders are, in fact, paid professionals: namely, it takes full time commitment to do the training, study, practice and preparation involved in carrying out these responsibilities properly.

I'm an IC/AL with experience in comm, planning, UDF and mission observer.

If disaster strikes my community and the best way I can help is by making bologna sandwiches, or driving a CAP van full of MREs from shelter to shelter, or doing admin work on a computer, I'll do it gladly.

If I'm needed to coordinate the CAP contribution as Agency Liaison, that's fine too.

What I'm not...and what virtually none of the personnel available to me are, either -- is a substitute for professional first responders.

We supplement....we serve as force multipliers....we help.

That's what CAP does.

[Dragoon]

CAP's gonna do fine.  Here are some predictions.



First they'll get the ID cards rolling with all the paid guys.  This will take years.  It took the Army over 3 years to roll out Common Access Cards, and they already had a central database of folks!

Then they'll gradually move the cards into the volunteer force.  They'll start with big organizations like us and the Red Cross.

The first  cut won't have diddly to do with qualifications, it'll be about accountability. The card will verify that Billy Bob is associated with such-and-such an organization, so that we can be sure he's not a freelancer, and we know who to call if he does something stupid.

Having a Federal "101 card" is years away.  No need to get overly excited.

[ZigZag911]

I saw a newspaper article about this over the weekend.

Spokesperson for the issuing authority (believe DHS, can't recall!)
specifically stated that this applied only to rescuers (as in 'first responders'), not follow on personnel.

[Eclipse]

I guess the 50-100 people who AFRCC credits us with saving every year must be zombies since we obviously only recovered them and didn't rescue them. 

The fact that there are 50-100 more people on this earth a year because of CAP is the justification for our existence, it doesn't change our place in the grand scheme, however.

We would all be better served if we just concentrated on our own programs and stopped worrying about what the outside world might want from us in 3-5+ years for missions we aren't allowed to do anyway. Those who are in areas which have a higher ops tempo or specialized needs (mountains, wetlands, desert) can add those skills as needed without implication that the whole world needs them, too.

A fully-staffed, fully-trained cadre within our existing program would allow us to ramp into anything else
we were asked to do fairly easily.  What we have today is a mish-mosh of people and units doing their own thing because they "felt like it", author included.

[Dragoon]

There are two intermixed issues here

1.  Should CAP "get ahead of the pack" and make sure that it's absolutely FEMA compliant with everything it does today, even if the FEMA stuff is still evolving?

2.  Should CAP expand its capabilities into more "front line" kinda stuff so that it can be called upon to do more?



Here's a possible set of answers.

To #1 - Nope.  Ain't worth it.  Better to ensure NHQ is tightly tied to the FEMA folks so that when standards ARE official and required, we can work towards them (along with everyone else in the free world.

To #2 - Mebbe.  Depends on a whole bunch of things like "is USAF interested in covering the insurance for some of these other taskings" to "does this distract from our core missions" to "can we reasonable expect our volunteers to master these more complex capabilities, or is this something best left to someone else's core mission."

The most important asset we have is volunteer air power.  There's no serious competition on that front.  Expanding those capabilities makes oodles of sense.  Expanding our ground capability to that overlaps with the air side (GT's, UDF, comms, SDIS, etc) makes sense as well.  But there's always someone thinking we need to become mountain climbers or scuba divers or whatever.  Those may not be such a good fit.

[Eclipse]

The issue with #2 is that we are barely capable today of initial response, let alone sustained operations, with a number of our members constantly banging the "I can't some to training, but I'll be there in a "real" emergency" drum, and of course there is no way to test that.

Sustained operations, especially Armageddon-scenarios such as Katrina are out of the question on a local or state level.  It took a national response to get the bodies we sent down there.  ( I know there were many who said they could go and weren't called, but there were also many who were called and said they couldn't go.  There were also many who went and should have stayed home).

Much of this is our own doing with poor event planning where members take time out to participate only to sit in a mission base watching the staff argue about minutia and never getting to actually do a sortie.

But its also a product of our lack of expectation of participation and performance, reward of bad behaviors, and acting as gateways to other organizations and agencies.

Organizations with clear mission statements that regularly execute in their core competencies have much more credibility when stretching into activities which are off target than those which can barely fill their assigned roles.

We need people, proficiency, and a top-down mission plan.

[Trouble]

The most important asset we have is volunteer air power.  There's no serious competition on that front.  Expanding those capabilities makes oodles of sense.  Expanding our ground capability to that overlaps with the air side (GT's, UDF, comms, SDIS, etc) makes sense as well.  But there's always someone thinking we need to become mountain climbers or scuba divers or whatever.  Those may not be such a good fit.

I agree whole heartedly with this statement.  We (CAP, on the ES side of the house at least) are basically an Air/Ground Task Force. We function best when our Aircrews and Ground/UDF Teams have the kind of symbiotic relationships that are a kin to "Marine Corps Close Air Support and Marine Infantry" or "USAF Air Assets and USAF Combat Controllers/ Forward Observers". In fact it is how we are meant to operate.   The Air and Ground units compliment each other while working toward the same objective. 

[CadetProgramGuy]

Let me add another question / perspective to this:

CAP is a self certifying organization, what for the most part has not changed our training by much.  Yes I agree we came out with new ES titles, but the training has not changed.

Unless you have a Medic with each GT you send to the field, we will never become a NIMS Type I team, which is most preferred.

Thoughts?

[RiverAux]

Makes very little difference.  Most county sherrifs or others running a lost person search are not really going to care what level the team is so long as it is trained. 

[mikeylikey]

They should still issue ID Cards.  I am not out to get another Govt ID card, but it is a very good idea.  Perhaps we can even move away from the library cards NHQ is issuing.

[Eclipse]

Let me add another question / perspective to this:

CAP is a self certifying organization, what for the most part has not changed our training by much.  Yes I agree we came out with new ES titles, but the training has not changed.

Unless you have a Medic with each GT you send to the field, we will never become a NIMS Type I team, which is most preferred.

Thoughts?

None, other than you are correct, and we should leave the first-wave ES operations to the professionals, and be ready to respond during round 2+ as needed.

[mikeylikey]

Let me add another question / perspective to this:

CAP is a self certifying organization, what for the most part has not changed our training by much.  Yes I agree we came out with new ES titles, but the training has not changed.

Unless you have a Medic with each GT you send to the field, we will never become a NIMS Type I team, which is most preferred.

Thoughts?

None, other than you are correct, and we should leave the first-wave ES operations to the professionals, and be ready to respond during round 2+ as needed.

We need to become the first wave professionals!  I am so sick of people saying CAP can't do this or CAP can't do that, and we are nothing more than a "cleanup" crew!

[Eclipse]

2nd and 3rd wave are also important, just not in the same manner.
You can't be a first responder when there is no requirement you answer the phone.

[sardak]

Unless you have a Medic with each GT you send to the field, we will never become a NIMS Type I team, which is most preferred.

Preferred by whom?  Outside of major disaster related SAR operations, there is no need for Type I SAR teams as currently typed by FEMA.

Mike

[KyCAP]

Just rummaging around on the internet.

First responder is really a relative term based on the state wide level planning which I have seen directly as a result of being involved with CAP. 

If in the middle of the earthquake that just took out all of your comm, knocked down the firehouse and 50% of your EMS force "victims" who is responding to the first responders?

It takes a different "skill" of first responder to fly the military supply routes in your state to guide the rest of the "first responders" to the afflicted area safely and accurately.

In the New Madrid area, CAP is the part of the "First Responder" force along with the Army National Guard, Air Force National Guard who has the "boots on the ground".  Their Blackhawk component is well practiced to fly a "task force" WITH CAP.  We practice this EVERY YEAR for the past THREE YEARS!!!

My point, your "First Responder" category is relative to the mission.

I can assure you that the LTC in the Army National Guard in charge of Civilian Response has my cell phone (and three other CAP members) on his check list.   He has called me this year... I see him no less than quarterly.  A WONDERFUL relationship.

As others would say... "Just sayin'"

[arajca]

Unless you have a Medic with each GT you send to the field, we will never become a NIMS Type I team, which is most preferred.

Thoughts?

Currently, there are no NIMS Type I SAR teams in CO. From talking to several SAR organizations, there never will be. It's not a matter of medical personnel, it's a matter of the sheer number of personnel - 50+.

NIMS typing is a matter of capabilities and also relates directly to costs. Type 1 is not the most prefered - it is the most expensive. The most prefered type is the one whose capabilities meet the needs of the incident. If all I need is a simple comm relay station, I'll order a Type IV or maybe a Type III Comm Support Team. I will not order a Type I because it is overkill and it is far more expensive. If I need search personnel to do line searches through a wooded area, I'll order several Type III or Type IV teams, not a Type I team for the same reason.

That is one aspect of planning and logistics that many folks in CAP (and much of the rest of the ES world) overlook - getting the right resources not the ones with the most capabilities.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Guys:

CAP can do ONE THING better than anybody else, or at least after 65 years we should be better at it than anybody else...

Air search and air recon with ground coodination.  We can fly low and slow, and coodinate with ground teams.  OUR ground teams.  

If you need a type I ground asset, and CAP can't provide it, AND you need to coordinate the ground op to an air search, then attach acoordinating CAP element (2 officers and a radio) to the other agency's type I team.

We don't do anything else very good.

We can do air/ground SAR and air recon in disasters and for Homeland Security.  We can do it well, with 535 airplanes pre-positioned around the US.

Let the EMT's be the medics, the nozzle-knockers put out fires, and the cops arrest people.  We're the flyers.

[Dragoon]

Guys:

CAP can do ONE THING better than anybody else, or at least after 65 years we should be better at it than anybody else...

Air search and air recon with ground coodination.  We can fly low and slow, and coodinate with ground teams.  OUR ground teams.  

If you need a type I ground asset, and CAP can't provide it, AND you need to coordinate the ground op to an air search, then attach acoordinating CAP element (2 officers and a radio) to the other agency's type I team.

We don't do anything else very good.

We can do air/ground SAR and air recon in disasters and for Homeland Security.  We can do it well, with 535 airplanes pre-positioned around the US.

Let the EMT's be the medics, the nozzle-knockers put out fires, and the cops arrest people.  We're the flyers.

There's a lot of truth here.

Obviously, planes are our main core competency - the thing we have that almost no one else has.

So with that in mind, what's the best role for our ground teams?  Well, the thing we can practice all the time is working with airplanes.  Also electronic search.

It could be that we could focus our GT effort on becoming effecting "Air Liaison Teams" that could be attached to other people's search teams in order to provide the capability of dealing with aircraft and doing beacon work.  That gives us a niche.

Better to do a few things well than to do many things poorly.

[RiverAux]

I guess everybody forgot that we have at least 3 times as many ground SAR personnel as pilots and about a quarter more vans than planes.  If there is another nation-wide organization with 6,000-8,000 ground sar personnel I haven't heard about it. 

This is one occassion where I will trot out the, "More than meets the skies" phrase.

[ZigZag911]

The fact remains that our GTs are principally trained in DFing and air-ground coordination.....this is what we do that virtually no one else does, and certainly no one does as well as we do.

Should there be a further 'specialty'? yeah, I think so, but I don't think it's a first responder role....I think CAP ought to focus on disaster relief mitigation, in support of the Guard & Red Cross....shelter management, damage assessment, and so forth.

[ELTHunter]

My two cents.

In my local area, CAP is better trained, better equipped, better organized and more professional than most of the local rescue organizations with the exception of a few small cities that have paid, full-time responders.  Most of the county EMA's around here have a part time Director and rely on volunteer workers, many of whom have practically no training.  I have worked federal disasters in neighboring counties where I saw rescue squad people that made me think it would be better to be left on my own then have them come after me in an emergency.  In the group of state trained Disaster Assessment Team Leaders (I'm talking about DATL's that will accompany first responders immediately in the aftermath of an event, not second tier follow-on's) that I trained with for a neighboring county, I was one of the very few trained people, and another one or two were volunteer firefighters.  If we are needed, I have no question that we would be accepted.  In the event of a real crisis here, CAP would be one of the better trained and equipped assets.  We are written in to response plans for several different scenarios.  Now maybe in big disasters in large metropolitan areas, where professional assets can come from all over, we wouldn't measure up, but those incidents are very few and far between.

Having said that, I agree with other posters here that have said CAP has a specific capability to be utilized.  We are trained and equipped to be airborne and ground to air resources, mainly in connection with missing aircraft and maybe missing people in certain instances.  We also do very well at airborne recon immediately after disasters, before satellites and other aerial imagery systems can be brought to bear.  We can also perform disaster assessment and relief (not rescue).  We are not high angle, swift water, underwater, or urban rescuers.  We are not first responder EMT's unless we happen to have an EMT on a ground team in on one of the previously stated missions.

Lets be the best trained, well equipped, professional resource for our core mission capabilities, and leave the rest to other organizations that specialize in those other areas.  I know there are a lot of people who don't want to accept this, and I have never understood why.  If you are trained and desire to perform high-angle, swift water, urban or some other highly technical form of rescue, find one of those other organizations and join it TOO.

[RiverAux]

The fact remains that our GTs are principally trained in DFing and air-ground coordination.....this is what we do that virtually no one else does, and certainly no one does as well as we do.

Thats funny since locating ELTs comprise and air-ground coordination comprise only about 10% of the tasks in the GT task book.  The fact is that CAP vastly underutilizes and underpromotes our GT capabilities while overpromoting our air SAR capabilities which are only of use in a few specific situations.    While there are certainly local independent SAR teams that overall have better GT skills than us, in most of the country the local CAP unit is only ground SAR organization available. 

So, I would argue that no other national organization does ground SAR as well as we do. 

[sardak]

Lets be the best trained, well equipped, professional resource for our core mission capabilities, and leave the rest to other organizations that specialize in those other areas.  I know there are a lot of people who don't want to accept this, and I have never understood why.  If you are trained and desire to perform high-angle, swift water, urban or some other highly technical form of rescue, find one of those other organizations and join it TOO.

Hooray!  As a someone who has always had joint membership in CAP and the local SAR unit, I concur wholeheartedly.  The person who recruited me into both groups 28 years ago said with dual membership, you get involved with just about everything.  I've given up preaching this because no one ever seems interested.

As for specialty teams, CAP has always had the opportunity to be the experts at ground DF.  But apparently this is boring or no fun or not exciting or something else because rarely does it happen. 

So, I would argue that no other national organization does ground SAR as well as we do.

And how many other national organizations do ground SAR?  I can think of only one.  The Mountain Rescue Association and I'd say its member teams do ground SAR as well as CAP.

Mike

[Eclipse]

So, I would argue that no other national organization does ground SAR as well as we do. 

And I probably wouldn't argue that on a national level.

What we should concentrate on is the SEARCHING part, and leave the RESCUE part to the pros.  Spread
100 of our volunteers eyes on an area, and let the rescue team standby for the hits.

That's an effective use of scarce resources and well within our existing program.

[arajca]

So, I would argue that no other national organization does ground SAR as well as we do.

And how many other national organizations do ground SAR?  I can think of only one.  The Mountain Rescue Association and I'd say its member teams do ground SAR as well as CAP.

Mike

MRA is a different animal than CAP. I don't see them exercising command and control over the various independent teams that are members. MRA is more of a professional certification organization like the NFPA, NREMT, etc.

[SARMedTech]

I think I may have said otherwise in a previous post, but for the most part, I think keep untrained volunteers away from a disaster site. If its under investigation, they will often muck things up. If its medical, let em carry litters but thats about it. Theres a reason disaster folks go through training.

[RiverAux]

Well, the MRA isn't really comparable.  It is more of an association of independent SAR teams.  It does have a unified credentially system, but the MRA isn't in charge of the local SAR teams and what they do.  

[ZigZag911]

True, only 10% of the GT tasks directly bear on air-ground coord and DF work....but how many of the others support that mission as much as any other?

Nationally (which is the way we're speaking here) our primary ES mission is Inland SAR, with the emphasis on the 'search' for a variety of reasons.

That has heavily emphasized non-distress ELT work for many years....perhaps that will change with new technology, hard to say.

Locally, wings and subordinate units certainly have the possibility to tailor their training (within CAP regs and policies) to serve community needs....and should be doing so.

[Eclipse]

The emphasis on the ground curriculum, especially GTM, is self-sufficiency.

We can, in theory, drop people into an area and expect them to be able to survive and provide assistance
for 3 days without resupply.

Considering we cost effectively zero to deploy, that's huge, no matter what duty we are assigned.

Anything more technical than the above is "gravy training", or state-specific, which is fine, but the above is the core, and we should be selling that hard.

[sardak]

Andrew and RiverAux,
I agree with your assessments that MRA is a different animal than CAP.  As an historical note, Colorado Ground SAR Team, in which membership was open only to CAP members, was an MRA Associate Team (not fully accredited in all three disciplines - technical rock, ice and snow, search).  Due to changes in MRA, CAP and other politics, the team dissolved several years ago.

Mike

[DNall]

It seems to me there is a reason so many of these first responders are, in fact, paid professionals: namely, it takes full time commitment to do the training, study, practice and preparation involved in carrying out these responsibilities properly.

I'm an IC/AL with experience in comm, planning, UDF and mission observer.

If disaster strikes my community and the best way I can help is by making bologna sandwiches, or driving a CAP van full of MREs from shelter to shelter, or doing admin work on a computer, I'll do it gladly.

If I'm needed to coordinate the CAP contribution as Agency Liaison, that's fine too.

What I'm not...and what virtually none of the personnel available to me are, either -- is a substitute for professional first responders.

We supplement....we serve as force multipliers....we help.

That's what CAP does.

I'm sorry I had to rush out of town after getting this started last wknd, and I have drill in the morning too. This was a great answer though & I wanted to follow up.

First I would take VERY strong issue with the idea that part-time folks cannot do the job on the same level. Volunteer firefighters & reserve law enforcement can; and at least in my state they meet the exact same qualification & currency standards & their paid-full-time counterparts. The National Guard can, and don't for a second tell me about that BS paycheck that literally doesn't cover half the gas I spend going to drills. The state guard (SDF) in my state does & they get paid per deim only during actual deployments & still less than the gas they burn getting to/from them. EOC volunteers at the State & County level do & they don't get crap. Down toward the bottom you get stuff like Red Cross & CERT that are kind of on the line. Then there are dedicated volunteer search organizations in some places that are many times superb. That mostly brings to mind the mountains, but around here we have a dog search crew, a swiftwater team, and of course there's equisearch.

Don't tell me CAP cannot make the grade, that's a giant cop out & I won't stand for it.

Today, CAP is not today in the rescue business, and neither do we recover the remains of people or stuff after the fact. We just do search, and call for help. That's fine for UDF that turns into something, and passable for a redcap where it's 99.5% likely they're dead & we're just fulfilling the govt's obligation to give it a fair look.

It's not fine when you sell the govt on that force being a capable SaR organization to get your funding; it's not fine when you walk up on someone in real trouble & you don't know what to do; it's not fine when you try to sell & apply that force to a distater situation; it's not fine when you're malfeasent with this massive capability so that it can't be brought to bear on real HLS issues in any significant way. We know where the future is, and we know planes aren't going to go & stay disappeared at the rate they did 50 years ago.

Yes, if a major disaster befalls my community/state/nation & the best they got for me is filling sandbags or hauling crap around, then sure I'll help out, BUT I'll be pissed as hell after the fact that I spent a considerable amount of my personal time & fortune to actually be in the fight. It's one thing if that's all the fight there is; it's entirely another when people are out there in trouble, I have the equipment & capability to do something about it, and I'm sitting at home cause my organization can't get it's crap together.

I think we're all here to make a difference - that's sure as hell is what we sell to visitors - when do we get that chance? What has to be done to make CAP change?

Personally, I see FEMA/DHS saying un/semi-trained volunteers are beyond useless that they are actually a huge hinderence to real responders. I see them coming out with this smart card program specifically designed & upfront stated that it's to keep such idiots away from the real work. And I see CAP not right this second making the cut. So, my great hope is that it gets CAP off its collective duff & forces the paradigm shift & reorganization necessary to put us in the real game. That end-state is the CAP I want to be part of, I don't know about yall.

[RiverAux]

In regards to major disasters CAP does not have a real strategy for participating in the response other than sending aircrews to take photographs and do light cargo transport.  We''ll meet and exceed whatever standards become official for that.

However, there is no emphasis on developing the potential of our ground forces to participate in such disaster response since all our teams are TRAINED to do is light SAR work, of which there is very little need after a major disaster. 

However, I don't see this as a problem.  So what if our ground teams aren't tasked after a major disaster.  They only come along every now and again.  However, there are dozens (if not many more) of opportunities in most states to use our ground teams in missing person SAR.  That should be our bread and butter. 

Now, if CAP wants to actually sit down and think about what role we should play in major disaster and focus on a few key areas where we might be most helpful, that would be great, but they need to develop in-house training for it so that our folks can do the job.  In the meantime, CAP is really as useless as other untrained volunteers for most things that need to be done after a disaster.  The good thing is that this makes us no different than the average National Guardsman who also has not specific disaster response training either.

[ZigZag911]

DNall, you make some interesting points....perhaps this is precisely what needs (at least in part) to be the distinction between GTM3 (basic level) and GTM 1 or 2 -- capabilities to actually execute the rescue aspects of the mission.

The current required tasks, in some cases, almost seem more appropriate for GTL -- for instance, plan, organize, and control a search line.

[Dragoon]

The GTM 1,2, and 3 seem to be primarily designed to give cadets reason to go to NASAR more than once.

Since 60-3 doesn't put any doctrinal limits on what missions various levels of GTMs can do, nor describe how to type classify a team of mixed assets, the whole thing isn't helping very much.

But it could, done correctly.

[Dragoon]

First I would take VERY strong issue with the idea that part-time folks cannot do the job on the same level. Volunteer firefighters & reserve law enforcement can; and at least in my state they meet the exact same qualification & currency standards & their paid-full-time counterparts. The National Guard can, and don't for a second tell me about that BS paycheck that literally doesn't cover half the gas I spend going to drills. The state guard (SDF) in my state does & they get paid per deim only during actual deployments & still less than the gas they burn getting to/from them. EOC volunteers at the State & County level do & they don't get crap. Down toward the bottom you get stuff like Red Cross & CERT that are kind of on the line. Then there are dedicated volunteer search organizations in some places that are many times superb. That mostly brings to mind the mountains, but around here we have a dog search crew, a swiftwater team, and of course there's equisearch.

So if part timers can do it as well as full timers, we can fire all the full timers, right?  After all, part timers are cheaper - and if we paid them even a little, we could have oodles more of them.


Sorry, I just don't buy that.  Training for something 40 hours a week beats the heck out of training 20 hours a month.

It's nice rhetoric, but iIMHO t's just unrealistic.

Whatever your day job is, I'm sure you do it MUCH better than a guy who only does it a few day a month. Simple math.  Experience and sheer repitition count for a lot.

CAP is the same way - our value isn't that we can out-do the paid professionals - it's that we can do things they don't train for (where we have the advantage), and that we can supplement the tasks they are trained for during surge situations.

[Ned]

Sorry, I just don't buy that.  Training for something 40 hours a week beats the heck out of training 20 hours a month.

It's nice rhetoric, but iIMHO t's just unrealistic.

Sorry, it's a strong argument, not mere rhetoric.

Just think back to your Army experience.

One of the reasons the Guard and Reserve are as successful as they are is they get to devote their time pretty much exclusively to training (at least in peacetime) and they are generally work consistently together as a cohort while training or operationally.

While the AD guys do work hard to train, they are constantly distracted by real world missions as well as mountains of adminsitrivia that conspires to prevent them from good collective training.

[War Story]  I was a Guard MP company commander, and my unit was evaluated every year during AT by an AD MP officer, invariably a O4 or O5 MP with previous command experience.  And using the Army-wide standards that applied to all units -- AD, USAR, & NG.  I always felt a little inferior to our AD counterparts because I believed, as you do, that we only train a weekend a month and two weeks in the summer, so how could we hope to measure up to our AD counterparts?

My revelation came later when I returned the favor and served as a senior evaluator for an AD MP company.  I felt sorry for the poor company commander as he struggled against overwhelming forces -- he had trouble mustering 40% of his unit into the field because of leaves, profiles, & schools.  Things that NG units do not normally have to deal with during IDT or AT.  Not to mention deployments (he had one platoon deployed to the Sinai).

So of course his collective training sucked, and his unit was barely able to achieve a passing score on the evaluation.

The point being that a USAR/NG MP company could easily have stepped right in and done as well as our beleagured AD brethren.  [/war story]

Similarly, it is not hard to imagine that volunteer firefighters and reserve cops who meet the same standards as their full-time counterparts could step into a full-time role temporarily and do well.

The problems arise, as you mention, in sustainment.  The part-timers are part-timers for a reason.  And those pesky "regular" jobs and families get irritated when we surge the volunteers.

That's where a Civil Air Patrol Civil Relief Act could be of assistance.

[Dragoon]

Sorry, I just don't buy that.  Training for something 40 hours a week beats the heck out of training 20 hours a month.

It's nice rhetoric, but iIMHO t's just unrealistic.

Sorry, it's a strong argument, not mere rhetoric.

Just think back to your Army experience.

I have been. That's partially where my statement came from.  I have spent a fair amount of time training and evaluating Reserve Component units over the years.

One of the reasons the Guard and Reserve are as successful as they are is they get to devote their time pretty much exclusively to training (at least in peacetime) and they are generally work consistently together as a cohort while training or operationally.


While the AD guys do work hard to train, they are constantly distracted by real world missions as well as mountains of adminsitrivia that conspires to prevent them from good collective training.

The cohort part is definitely true.

But the other part...

I've seen units spend 1/2 their drill weekend drawing and turning in their equipment, leaving about 8 hours to train.  And then they have to pull guys out for PT tests, NCO boards, etc.

I've seen guard units give up an entire day of their AT for a "Family Day".  Add in the time to draw and turn in equipment, and that two week AT was about 9 days of training.

I've seen the extensive train up it takes before a unit is truly fully mission capable capable.  After the trainup, of course, the guys are golden.  But that train up is done after activation - not before.  It's full time training.  As in "just like active duty." 

The training gap is least in specialities where the real-world civilian skills are applicable - like a bunch of real life doctors in a medical unit.  Or a bunch of real life airline pilots in a transport flying unit.    In fact, sometimes these guys have the edge over their active duty counterparts.  I'd take an inner city ER doctor reservist  over your average army doctor to treat my bullet wound any day.

The current guard and reserve, of course, have the advantage of so many previous deployments that there are a lots of vets to help things along.  After all, that year in the desert is "active duty," regardless of who pays your salary.  Right now, there's really not much of an experience difference.

This has nothing to do, with enthusiasm or dedication, it's pure hours devoted to training.  Also to doing the job day in and day out. 

Given a choice, I'll take the heart surgeon who does the operation 10 times a week over the guy who does 1 a month.  Simple

In the same way, I don't expect a CAP ICP staffer to have the same mastery of his job as a USAF command and control specialiest.  And I certainly don't expect the same level of proficiency and skill from the pilots (if we did, I certainly would be ineligible to fly missions!)  No shame there - just an acknowledgement of reality.

[jimmydeanno]

The training gap is least in specialities where the real-world civilian skills are applicable - like a bunch of real life doctors in a medical unit.  Or a bunch of real life airline pilots in a transport flying unit.    In fact, sometimes these guys have the edge over their active duty counterparts.  I'd take an inner city ER doctor reservist  over your average army doctor to treat my bullet wound any day.

[offtopic]
Joke from the last AF Doctor I went to - "What does the guy who places last in his class at med school do after he graduates?  Becomes a military doctor."

Sorry, thought it was amusing, especially coming from a military doctor...[/offtopic]

[RiverAux]

Keep in mind that there are almost no full-time people doing disaster relief or ground SAR as their sole job.  Pretty much everybody is doing it on a part-time basis whether they are being paid or are a volunteer. 

[Dragoon]

Keep in mind that there are almost no full-time people doing disaster relief or ground SAR as their sole job.  Pretty much everybody is doing it on a part-time basis whether they are being paid or are a volunteer. 

Yup. And that's why we add value just the way we are.  We've got the planes.

I've dealt with a few volunteer DR and SAR groups, and they seem at least as screwed up as we are.   

Now, here's a big question - how many "niches" should we fill? 

Should we expand into Urban SAR?  Scuba SAR?  Field Hospitals?

Or perhaps stick to our core competencies and leave that stuff to other organizations, while they leave ours to us?

[DNall]

So if part timers can do it as well as full timers, we can fire all the full timers, right?  After all, part timers are cheaper - and if we paid them even a little, we could have oodles more of them.

Sorry, I just don't buy that.  Training for something 40 hours a week beats the heck out of training 20 hours a month.

It's nice rhetoric, but iIMHO t's just unrealistic.

Whatever your day job is, I'm sure you do it MUCH better than a guy who only does it a few day a month. Simple math.  Experience and sheer repitition count for a lot.

CAP is the same way - our value isn't that we can out-do the paid professionals - it's that we can do things they don't train for (where we have the advantage), and that we can supplement the tasks they are trained for during surge situations.

I didn't say out-do! I said can-do.

Think about guard troops... They should be fully qualified & combat ready. They may not practice on a daily basis, but they aren't posers. You MIGHT call them second string (and you might get punched for doing so), but they are still part of the same team & when they go to war no one knows the difference.

That's where CAP needs to be vis-a-vie professional responders.

The problems arise, as you mention, in sustainment.  The part-timers are part-timers for a reason.  And those pesky "regular" jobs and families get irritated when we surge the volunteers.

That's where a Civil Air Patrol Civil Relief Act could be of assistance.

That's absolutely correct!

[floridacyclist]

Here in FL, we are simply trying to get volunteers for a government agency the same rights and benefits as volunteers for Red Cross. Right now, if you work for the state and volunteer for RC, you get paid admin leave....but if you volunteer for the state EOC, you have to take your own vacation time. Maybe we can get it changed next session with the bill I'm trying to get through changing "Red Cross" to "government agency" and "declared disaster" to "documented emergency". Folks are actually starting to come on-board rather than trying to get individual NGOs recognized...if this gets passed, all they will need is a tracker request from DEM (a government agency as required by the proposed law) to be Bona Fide.

This would also cover CAP on AFRCC-requested missions as well as many other missions we may do. Of course, it only applies to State Employees, but county and city governments usually follow the state's personnel rules.

[DNall]

Keep in mind that there are almost no full-time people doing disaster relief or ground SAR as their sole job.  Pretty much everybody is doing it on a part-time basis whether they are being paid or are a volunteer. 

Yup. And that's why we add value just the way we are.  We've got the planes.

I've dealt with a few volunteer DR and SAR groups, and they seem at least as screwed up as we are.   

Now, here's a big question - how many "niches" should we fill? 

Should we expand into Urban SAR?  Scuba SAR?  Field Hospitals?

Or perhaps stick to our core competencies and leave that stuff to other organizations, while they leave ours to us?

But we don't know what we're doing! We're just a bunch of people with uniforms and a handful of planes. Our training is worthless in comparison to the standards FEMA is demanding of all responders. And our certification process of "do-it-yourself & someone who didn't see it will sign off," that's not acceptable. We have to be qualified by OUTSIDE standards & evaluators (who can be CAP members w/ outside certs). We can just walk up and say we're qualified. That doesn't make it true.



RiverAux mentioned "state-level missing person SaR" & not understanding what our ground crews would do in the relatively few disasters. He also mentioned photo recon & light transport on our air side. Let me address those...

That's first of all work for about 3 planes, not 100. I'd say that we need to be first in assets literally as soon as the wind clears enough to get in the airspace. Assessment needs to start with general survey to determine hardest hit areas (where to direct federal/state assets), then you need to evaluate potential operating bases & transportation routes to/from. You then go back to damage assesment & backfill the detail/answer requests, and you support comm. The rest need to be working SaR & comm (support of other agency comm as well).

Far as ground, you need to put that front end set of crews in to do initial damage assessment - like Florida RECON, only we can do it as a combined air/grd unit, and we can relay pictures taken on the ground or in the air directly to FEMA/Governor.

The first thing you do after you get set up at those bases is go look for missing people, planes, & boats! Some of that is going to be AFRCC, and some is just driving around systematically looking for people in trouble.

The big thing we bring to the table isn't just the planes. Alone, they aren't very meaningful. It's the combined air/grd unit w/ strong comms capability, and we should be further developing field command & control apparatus. That's what makes us important is that we can employ such forces at the lowest levels.

[Dragoon]

Think about guard troops... They should be fully qualified & combat ready. They may not practice on a daily basis, but they aren't posers. You MIGHT call them second string (and you might get punched for doing so), but they are still part of the same team & when they go to war no one knows the difference.

That's where CAP needs to be vis-a-vie professional responders.

Except that the average reserve component unit requires a rather extensive active duty trainup period before deployment.  They aren't "combat ready" by training 2 days a month.

If they were, we could shrink the active force by 2/3s and just rely on the reserve component.  After all, they're much cheaper!

We are never going to be, man for man, as well trained as the National Guard.  But that's okay.  As long as we're dedicated to doing the best we realistically can, and we don't promise more than we can deliver, we bring added capability to the mission at hand.

[Dragoon]

But we don't know what we're doing! We're just a bunch of people with uniforms and a handful of planes. Our training is worthless in comparison to the standards FEMA is demanding of all responders. And our certification process of "do-it-yourself & someone who didn't see it will sign off," that's not acceptable. We have to be qualified by OUTSIDE standards & evaluators (who can be CAP members w/ outside certs). We can just walk up and say we're qualified. That doesn't make it true.

You have a rather idealistic view of what we "should be doing."  I really doubt it's gonna play out that way.

First, FEMA has yet to demand squat of anyone.  And when they do, they'll be setting reasonable goals that we'll have no more problem meeting than any other volunteer agency.

Second, the OUTSIDE evaluation is going to end up as a pencil whipping drill. Because FEMA ain't funded to provide the evaluators to all the outside groups in every specialty.  They'll in the end expect large groups like CAP to self certify.  FEMA will never be the expert on inland Air SAR, so they'll end up relying us to write and enforce the standard! 

Look at the ICS certification - for the most of us this comes down to a couple of online courses and some multiple choice open book quizzes - hardly diffficult stuff. 

There are lots of reasons to improve - but fear of FEMA isn't one of them. 

RiverAux mentioned "state-level missing person SaR" & not understanding what our ground crews would do in the relatively few disasters. He also mentioned photo recon & light transport on our air side. Let me address those...

That's first of all work for about 3 planes, not 100. I'd say that we need to be first in assets literally as soon as the wind clears enough to get in the airspace. Assessment needs to start with general survey to determine hardest hit areas (where to direct federal/state assets), then you need to evaluate potential operating bases & transportation routes to/from. You then go back to damage assesment & backfill the detail/answer requests, and you support comm. The rest need to be working SaR & comm (support of other agency comm as well).

Far as ground, you need to put that front end set of crews in to do initial damage assessment - like Florida RECON, only we can do it as a combined air/grd unit, and we can relay pictures taken on the ground or in the air directly to FEMA/Governor.

The first thing you do after you get set up at those bases is go look for missing people, planes, & boats! Some of that is going to be AFRCC, and some is just driving around systematically looking for people in trouble.

The big thing we bring to the table isn't just the planes. Alone, they aren't very meaningful. It's the combined air/grd unit w/ strong comms capability, and we should be further developing field command & control apparatus. That's what makes us important is that we can employ such forces at the lowest levels.

I dunno, still sounds like the planes are the big thing we've got going.  That's how you'd do the damage assessment of large areas, and the main way you'd look for missing cars, planes and boats.

Sure, it would be good to be the ground damage assessment folks, but we're not the only ones who can do that.  Last time I checked, the Red Cross has a fair amount of this tradespace. 

Sending pictures from the ground is worth pursuing, but the comms network would need a whole new technology - we can't count on cells or even satellite bandwidth, and SSTV in it's current form is not idea for more than one transmitter per frequency. 

I get your basic concept - CAP could be the eyes and ears for the entire disaster.  It's not a bad vision.  Would need some bucks though.  USAF isn't likely to pay.

[Ned]

Except that the average reserve component unit requires a rather extensive active duty trainup period before deployment.  They aren't "combat ready" by training 2 days a month.

That's not the standard, nor is it a good measurement in the context of this discussion.

Because Guard units ARE "disaster ready" (IOW, qualified for their state missions) by training 2 days a month.

IOW, there is no pre-deployment training for riots, floods, wildfires, earthquakes, etc.

The Governor calls, and the Guard goes.

And, by-and-large, do a pretty good job.

And these kinds of natural disaster/state active duty missions are a much better analogy than working in a joint and combined arms team in a high-intensity conflict.

Don't you think?

[SARMedTech]

Keep in mind that there are almost no full-time people doing disaster relief or ground SAR as their sole job.  Pretty much everybody is doing it on a part-time basis whether they are being paid or are a volunteer. 

Thats actually not true and not to be argumentative but its another one of those famous "most statements" thats not based on any proven statistic. I did DR and SAR long before I ever heard of CAP. Most of my education has been in DR and my training and experience in MSAR (medical search and rescue). Im working on my Master's with 25 people who are doing their degrees online because their career lives involved living out of a pack. In my class alone there are 5 smoke jumper medics and 4 people who have been in ES in some form as their career for at least 10 years.  Then add in people who work for the Red Cross, FEMA, CDC, NIH and folks like me who specialize on disaster medicine. People thing of disaster relief careers as desk jockies. The people driving the desks are the small portion of the business end of DR. Add in fire fighters, EMTs, Medics, the technical rescue squads of LAPD and Jersey City's ESU alone are huge employers.

As for volunteers at disaster sites, Im all for it and thankful for them as long as their training and abilities do not hinder the efforts of professionals as it did at times in both NYC and New Orleans. NOLA turned people away because they knew that untrained volunteers in a disaster zone are dangerous and more likely to become nothing but more casualties and take time away from the real effort when they get themselves in trouble due to shoddy training or thinking if you can work a shovel you can work rescue.

[RiverAux]

Please go to just about any county in the country and tell me how many people are working full time on DR and SAR.  If you're in a medium to large metropolitan area they've probably got a few time emergency coordinators on staff and there are some working in the state's emergency management agency, and maybe a few paid Red Cross folks, but go out into the hinterlands and its a whole different story.  You just happen to be in close proximity to the handful of professionals out there. 

I'm not sure I've ever come across a full-time paid SAR person on a search of any kind.   Plenty of persons who have it as a part-time part of their job description (cops and firemen mostly), but overwhelmingly volunteers of one form or another. 

Add in fire fighters, EMTs, Medics, the technical rescue squads of LAPD and Jersey City's ESU alone are huge employers

All of whom only do SAR or DR as a side part of their job unless you've actually got a technical rescue squad sitting around on standby all day. 

Now, one could argue that any fire is a disaster, and it is for those folks, but in the context of this discussion we're not talking about those routine events that CAP wouldn't be involved in anyway. 

[Dragoon]

Except that the average reserve component unit requires a rather extensive active duty trainup period before deployment.  They aren't "combat ready" by training 2 days a month.

That's not the standard, nor is it a good measurement in the context of this discussion.

Because Guard units ARE "disaster ready" (IOW, qualified for their state missions) by training 2 days a month.

IOW, there is no pre-deployment training for riots, floods, wildfires, earthquakes, etc.

The Governor calls, and the Guard goes.

And, by-and-large, do a pretty good job.

And these kinds of natural disaster/state active duty missions are a much better analogy than working in a joint and combined arms team in a high-intensity conflict.

Don't you think?

We're switching the discussion a bit. Up till now, the comparision of guard/reserve with active was done to illustrate the relative competence of part timers vs full times at doing the same task.  In this case, fighting people.

This was done specifically to debate the "part timers are just as good as full timers" assertion.

Now, if you wanna talk about the Guard in a DR role that's something different.  Sure, they're awfully good.  Probably better than we are.

And that's kind of the point.

The Guard gets a fair amount of training dollars, equipment dollars, and dedicated training time, well and above what CAP gets.  So...they're better than we are.  Makes sense.  If we could get volunteers to do their job without pay, we could save lots of money!

CAP has a place, primarily doing stuff the guard isn't trained/equipped to do (like flying light planes around, and doing ELT work), and in augmenting them during surges (like big disasters).

We can help. We have a place.  And we matter.

But we're just not gonna be as competent as those who get paid to do it.  There will be individual exceptions of course.  But on average, our level of readiness and competence will be a direct reflection of the dollars and hours spent doing it.  Less dollars and hours - less competence.

[Ned]

[
We're switching the discussion a bit. Up till now, the comparision of guard/reserve with active was done to illustrate the relative competence of part timers vs full times at doing the same task.  In this case, fighting people.

This was done specifically to debate the "part timers are just as good as full timers" assertion.

Nope, I think it's the same topic.  Our AD folks do their fair share of DR.  I worked alongside 7th ID guys on several California wildfires.  I also worked with them and a bunch of Marines during the LA riots.

And of course a whole bunch of AD folks performed well and saved lives in the recent past during several hurricanes, most notably Katrina.

And I don't think anyone has asserted that "part timers are just as good as full timers" any more than anyone has said that "part timers are worthless."

The truth is undoubtedly somewhere in between the two extremes.

But on average, our level of readiness and competence will be a direct reflection of the dollars and hours spent doing it.  Less dollars and hours - less competence.

And on that, we can agree.

[floridacyclist]

I was co-teaching an ICS300 class the other day when the other instructor made a remark about NIMS being a living document. When asked to explain, he said that it was constantly evolving and would continue to evolve as long as folks continued to come up with better ways to do it...sort of like CPR.

If we wait for it to stop changing, we'd best not hold our breath.

[RiverAux]

The Guard gets a fair amount of training dollars, equipment dollars, and dedicated training time, well and above what CAP gets.  So...they're better than we are.  Makes sense.

Not if you're talking about doing disaster relief missions.  With the exception of certain technical abilities that they have (helicopters, engineeering equipment, and that sort of thing) we're pretty close. For example, a squad of National Guardsman infantrymen is no better trained to operate an emergency shelter or go door to door like CAP ground teams did after Katrina than we are.  They do have a few advantages, but they aren't out of our league. 

For example, the Texas Army National Guard has basically farmed out most of their shelter operations missions to the volunteer Texas State Guard who actually have received training in performing those missions. 

[Eclipse]

The Guard gets a fair amount of training dollars, equipment dollars, and dedicated training time, well and above what CAP gets.  So...they're better than we are.  Makes sense.

Not if you're talking about doing disaster relief missions.  With the exception of certain technical abilities that they have (helicopters, engineeering equipment, and that sort of thing) we're pretty close. For example, a squad of National Guardsman infantrymen is no better trained to operate an emergency shelter or go door to door like CAP ground teams did after Katrina than we are.  They do have a few advantages, but they aren't out of our league. 

For example, the Texas Army National Guard has basically farmed out most of their shelter operations missions to the volunteer Texas State Guard who actually have received training in performing those missions. 

I concur, but neither of these duties is a "first responder" activity, either, nor do they really require anything special except for self-sufficiency and common sense.

[Dragoon]

And I don't think anyone has asserted that "part timers are just as good as full timers" any more than anyone has said that "part timers are worthless."

Actually, someone did.  Just go back a page to this quote

First I would take VERY strong issue with the idea that part-time folks cannot do the job on the same level. Volunteer firefighters & reserve law enforcement can; and at least in my state they meet the exact same qualification & currency standards & their paid-full-time counterparts. The National Guard can, and don't for a second tell me about that BS paycheck that literally doesn't cover half the gas I spend going to drills. The state guard (SDF) in my state does & they get paid per deim only during actual deployments & still less than the gas they burn getting to/from them. EOC volunteers at the State & County level do & they don't get crap. Down toward the bottom you get stuff like Red Cross & CERT that are kind of on the line. Then there are dedicated volunteer search organizations in some places that are many times superb. That mostly brings to mind the mountains, but around here we have a dog search crew, a swiftwater team, and of course there's equisearch.

Don't tell me CAP cannot make the grade, that's a giant cop out & I won't stand for it.   

And this

So if part timers can do it as well as full timers, we can fire all the full timers, right?  After all, part timers are cheaper - and if we paid them even a little, we could have oodles more of them.

Sorry, I just don't buy that.  Training for something 40 hours a week beats the heck out of training 20 hours a month.

It's nice rhetoric, but iIMHO t's just unrealistic.

Whatever your day job is, I'm sure you do it MUCH better than a guy who only does it a few day a month. Simple math.  Experience and sheer repitition count for a lot.

CAP is the same way - our value isn't that we can out-do the paid professionals - it's that we can do things they don't train for (where we have the advantage), and that we can supplement the tasks they are trained for during surge situations.

I didn't say out-do! I said can-do.

Think about guard troops... They should be fully qualified & combat ready. They may not practice on a daily basis, but they aren't posers. You MIGHT call them second string (and you might get punched for doing so), but they are still part of the same team & when they go to war no one knows the difference.

That's where CAP needs to be vis-a-vie professional responders.

And away we went....

[Dragoon]

The Guard gets a fair amount of training dollars, equipment dollars, and dedicated training time, well and above what CAP gets.  So...they're better than we are.  Makes sense.

Not if you're talking about doing disaster relief missions.  With the exception of certain technical abilities that they have (helicopters, engineeering equipment, and that sort of thing) we're pretty close. For example, a squad of National Guardsman infantrymen is no better trained to operate an emergency shelter or go door to door like CAP ground teams did after Katrina than we are.  They do have a few advantages, but they aren't out of our league. 

For example, the Texas Army National Guard has basically farmed out most of their shelter operations missions to the volunteer Texas State Guard who actually have received training in performing those missions. 

In general terms - organized manpower with good comms, good vehicles and good command structure are valuable in a disaster, regardless of specific DR training.

CAP has some of all these things, more than many volunteer groups.  But the Guard has lots more than we got.  I'd kill for their radios, HMMWVs and trucks,  and military discipline during a disaster.

[Ned]

And I don't think anyone has asserted that "part timers are just as good as full timers" any more than anyone has said that "part timers are worthless."

Actually, someone did.  Just go back a page to this quote

You and I apparently read those quotes differently.  I read them as saying that part timers like reserve cops, volunteer firefighters, and Guard folks (all part timers whose roles have at least some comparison value to CAP) meet the same training standards as their full-time counterparts.  And accordingly are capable of stepping in at a moment's notice and performing their job to standard.

Which is true.  These dedicated folks routinely step in and replace and supplement their full-time counterparts.  Undoubtedly there are several thousand reseve cops and volunteer fire fighters on duty at this very moment.  There are hundreds of Guard soldiers and airman on active duty in California right now (who did not go through any extensive post-mob training) providing support at the border, working in counterdrug task forces, and fighting wildfires.



I sure didn't read those quotes as saying "they are just as good as full-timers."


But maybe we are just discussing semantics at this point.

Peace.

[SAR-EMT1]

The fact remains that our GTs are principally trained in DFing and air-ground coordination.....this is what we do that virtually no one else does, and certainly no one does as well as we do.

Should there be a further 'specialty'? yeah, I think so, but I don't think it's a first responder role....I think CAP ought to focus on disaster relief mitigation, in support of the Guard & Red Cross....shelter management, damage assessment, and so forth.

Just a quickie... in my 6 years in CAP Ive never done a single Sarex/Mission where an air element was involved. Nearest CAP bird is over 100 miles away.
It was 100% Ground Team Search (and Rescue) - not recovery-   ... as in locating lost kids in the woods, BLS life support on the way out etc...
Never ever did anything in support of the Red Cross, but they did roll out a field kitchen to support us once.
As for the Guard, in my area at least, the local Armorys tend to think of us as wayward boyscout troops. Wont even give us the time of day, couldnt even get a Recruiter to visit. 

[floridacyclist]

I think we're seeing the usual confusion between GT and UDF. Yes, our UDF teams are the best (and often the only) resource that can do what they do...ELT searches in populated areas.

Once we move into the GT realm though, we do have some catching up to do, but we are on the right track when we speak of NIMS typing and outside training opportunities such as SARTECH and some of the USAR training available from local fire departments. Not saying that we should become USAR teams, but some of the training (National Grid System, ICS etc) is right up our alley.

The biggest problem is lack of utilization leading to a lack of training which leads to a further lack of utilization etc etc. If folks don't see the need, they won't train and if they don't train, they won't be called. It's a vicious cycle that we can break by training and then letting the folks that be (fire chief, EMA director, Sheriff etc)know what we can do in language they can understand:

"Sir, we'd like you to be IC for our next exercise. We have 2 type III Wilderness SAR teams and a type III IMT that we can bring to the table as well as an airplane and trained aircrew that costs less than a quarter of what your chopper costs. We also have additional partially-trained personel that can be used as a force multiplier working in teams with fully-trained personnel".

After a couple of exercises, they just might take us seriously.

The fact remains that our GTs are principally trained in DFing and air-ground coordination.....this is what we do that virtually no one else does, and certainly no one does as well as we do.

Thats funny since locating ELTs comprise and air-ground coordination comprise only about 10% of the tasks in the GT task book.  The fact is that CAP vastly underutilizes and underpromotes our GT capabilities while overpromoting our air SAR capabilities which are only of use in a few specific situations.    While there are certainly local independent SAR teams that overall have better GT skills than us, in most of the country the local CAP unit is only ground SAR organization available. 

So, I would argue that no other national organization does ground SAR as well as we do. 

[BillB]

Gene, that's all well and good, but where does CAP get the training required for NIMS? The average Squadron doesn't do any NIMS training, but rather sticks with SAR training offered through Wings, none of which includes ICS. Without the ICS 100, 200 and 700 as a minimum local Emergency Management, or Fire-Rescue isn't going to look at CAP. More and more, Fire-Rescue Reserves are training in ground search and CERT is better trained for disaster relief than CAP which specializes in air-ground search. Locally the Reserves are working withh the Sheriffs helicopter for air ground search using ham radio for communications. So the local effort duplicates what CAP is capable of. Add to that, they train one or two times a month, they may be better trained than the local CAP unit(s).  Perhaps CAP needs to reevaluate training to meet post 9/11 requirements and roles of volunteers. So basically CAP is training in the wrong areas and for a role that has deminished in light of 9/11 and Kitrina.

[RiverAux]

All the courses you mentioned are available online and I'm betting that within a year those and 300/400 will be required within CAP.  The basic ones are not a problem at all. 

[floridacyclist]

I think Bill's tongue was firmly in his cheek. He was just at our ICS 100/200/700 and ICS300 training weekend down at the FL Fire College.

All it takes is either finding the classes or qualifying our own people to teach it. Yes, you can do the beginning classes online, but you learn so much more and get so much more interaction out of a live class that it is well worth your time if you can do it.

[ZigZag911]

Just a quickie... in my 6 years in CAP Ive never done a single Sarex/Mission where an air element was involved. Nearest CAP bird is over 100 miles away.
It was 100% Ground Team Search (and Rescue) - not recovery-   ... as in locating lost kids in the woods, BLS life support on the way out etc... 

I would suspect your experience is rather unusual....if I'm wrong, I'd be very interested in hearing fromother board members about this.

We do carry out ground-only missions...NJ Wing had one last night, a GT found an ELT, weather grounded aircraft....normally we do launch an AC whenever conditions permit unless it is very clearly a 'ramp search' situation.

[Trouble]

All the courses you mentioned are available online and I'm betting that within a year those and 300/400 will be required within CAP.  The basic ones are not a problem at all. 

Actually in MER those classes (ICS 100/200/700 and ICS300) are required, to remain current in a 101 card-Specialty Qualification Rating, as of 1 Oct 2007. IC's and Branch Directors have an additional year for their specific courses.

[Dustoff]

I was co-teaching an ICS300 class the other day when the other instructor made a remark about NIMS being a living document. When asked to explain, he said that it was constantly evolving and would continue to evolve as long as folks continued to come up with better ways to do it...sort of like CPR.

If we wait for it to stop changing, we'd best not hold our breath.

And as a side note, here's the latest and greatest

NIMS Five Year Training Plan V2
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=2962

Draft Revised NIMS - August 2007
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=2961

And

http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1189450382144.shtm
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released today the draft National Response Framework (NRF), successor to the National Response Plan, for a 30-day public comment period.

There are also legal precedents for the use of NIMS/ICS, which apply even to  organizations that have not formally adopted NIMS/ICS.  (I'm not a lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I can supply the citations.)

Jim

[RiverAux]

Interesting that this can be a requirement without an approved regional supplement to 60-3, which is the only way it could be "legal" in the region.

[floridacyclist]

I wonder at what point do federal rules trump CAP ones?

[RiverAux]

Never, except in relation to federal laws that bind everybody.  But just because the feds do something doesn't automatically change CAP regulations.  Now, the feds can change things such that if CAP doesn't adapt we don't get to play in their sandbox, but that is not the situation we're in (yet).

[SARMedTech]

I was co-teaching an ICS300 class the other day when the other instructor made a remark about NIMS being a living document. When asked to explain, he said that it was constantly evolving and would continue to evolve as long as folks continued to come up with better ways to do it...sort of like CPR.

If we wait for it to stop changing, we'd best not hold our breath.

Well said. As someone trained up to the level of IC, I can tell you that ICS/NIMS is designed to a living, breathing thing. It evolves over time and even from incident to incident bsaed on best practices, corrective actions, etc. I wasnt to shot with NIMS at first, but as I get more into the DR/ES field, I really enjoy it and am working right now on a handbook for EMS responders that they can carry with them....sort of a Pocket Guide to NIMS/ICS, since there are things that can be confusing. I am writing from an ICs point of view and in terms of how an ideal MCI situation would be run. If anyone has anything they think should be in such a pocket guide and you are well versed in NIMS/ICS, please feel free to PM me.

[floridacyclist]

I have one of those...a list of duty assignments and checklists for different positions. I'll see if I can find out more on it, but you might try looking on Gall's. I have to run to a class, but will look into it more as I would like to be able to give them out at ICS classes if I can find a good bulk price on them.

This class itself is quite fascinating - Basic Data Recovery and Acquisition, or How to Find a Pervert's Stash of Kiddie Porn After He's Reformatted His Drive. I'll be in Tampa for a couple more days if anyone is around and wants to say hi...will be at the Gp 3 (I think that's the group here) CC Call tomorrow night.