CAP and EMT's

[RiverAux]

River, you're reading into this what you want to see.

The General Counsel's statemeant is pretty clear to me. If you treat some one and they or their family decides to sue, you better hope your state has a Good Samaritan law because CAP will not cover you legally.

So, are your malpractice insurance payments current?

As long as what the EMT is doing is covered under the good samitarian law for that state, then it shouldn't matter any more than it would if someone that has done basic first aid messes up and someone dies as a result. 

The General Counsel statement is about 95% identical to the regulations and no where in it does it say that you can only do BASIC first aid.  It throws in the term "reasonable", but again links that back to the level of training of the CAP member providing the aid. 

[RiverAux]

if I assemble a GTM3 level team by picking names off a list & no knowledge of the people, their experience, etc, just on a qual list, can I guarantee to a customer agency exactly the min level capability their getting? Absolutely not. And that's using an internal CAP rating system that no one else remotely understands. The purpose of NIMS is to fix both aspects of that issue.

Theres nothing in NIMS that is going to fix that sort of thing.  CAP has a standard ground team training program that is more or less perfectly suited to what we do and just as good as the alternative and if it is not being tested the way it is supposed to be now, that is a problem for you and your fellow Wing members to fix.  We've got a firm national standard that you are saying is not being met in your area.  Another national standard ain't going to change that. 

[DNall]

Theres nothing in NIMS that is going to fix that sort of thing.  CAP has a standard ground team training program that is more or less perfectly suited to what we do and just as good as the alternative and if it is not being tested the way it is supposed to be now, that is a problem for you and your fellow Wing members to fix.  We've got a firm national standard that you are saying is not being met in your area.  Another national standard ain't going to change that. 

Actually there is no standardization of training or enforcement. I can go on eServices & put in dates/CAPID #s. That associated SET/trainer is never consulted to verify they actually viewed or approved the task. There is no structured academic work followed by practical testing. Those SET/trainers are not held to any high or standardized bar on the quals. What is passing to one person may not meet the standard to another individual; even with the same grader, those standards are not normally enforced the same against a 14yo cadet as they are a 50yo adult... if you think there's any serious standardization nationally, you're out of your mind.

Even if we were 100% squared away, those standards are unrecognizable to anyone outside CAP. If you cross-ref the FEMA standards, we're missing out big time on some key things. Even if you put courses & ratings aside for a second, how many people can pass a PT test? Don't you think that might be kind of important if you intend to strap up & hike into rough terrain for a few days?

Right now we're doing UDF & search line. We really can't do much more then that. That's a long way from WSAR, not to mention urban SaR. There is really no use for UDF/search line beyond missing aircraft & maybe the very rare light terrain no-overnight missing person type search.

What many many of our members are actually trained for & capable of is far beyond that. I personally have no desire to do another UDF mission as long as I live. I'd rather run ops & at least have a little challenge. If we're going to do real deal stuff though, I'll hump it out there with serious operators & save people's lives. That's why ground folks are actually in CAP, not to turn off non-distress ELTs.

Moving from UDF to real GSaR missions necessitates (per NIMS) EMTs once you get to a certain level of mission/team capability. That's the exact kind of capability we're needing in a post hurricane disaster response.

River, you're reading into this what you want to see.

The General Counsel's statemeant is pretty clear to me. If you treat some one and they or their family decides to sue, you better hope your state has a Good Samaritan law because CAP will not cover you legally.

So, are your malpractice insurance payments current?

As long as what the EMT is doing is covered under the good samitarian law for that state, then it shouldn't matter any more than it would if someone that has done basic first aid messes up and someone dies as a result. 

You're placing a lot more faith in good Samaritan laws than you should. It's one thing when you're a non-medical person performing CPR/first-aid within the limits of your training. It's quite another when you're placing your license & livelihood at risk to perform within the limits of your training, a level of care which is much more likely to result in legal action than bandaging a wound.

Those laws are different in every state with dif levels of protection & dif penalties for refusing aid.

What we actually need is a federal good samaritan law that covers federal responders & volunteer responders under federal orders for liability issues. That was worked on a couple years ago, but hasn't gone anywhere yet.

[RiverAux]

You're placing a lot more faith in good Samaritan laws than you should. It's one thing when you're a non-medical person performing CPR/first-aid within the limits of your training. It's quite another when you're placing your license & livelihood at risk to perform within the limits of your training, a level of care which is much more likely to result in legal action than bandaging a wound.

Those laws are different in every state with dif levels of protection & dif penalties for refusing aid.

Which is why the knowledgebase said this:

A state's good Samaritan law may provide some protection for members administering medical care consistent with their training and license, and the wing legal officer should be consulted for state specific information.

Obviously, if your state's good sam law has restrictions on how much protection is afforded trained medical professionals that would affect an individuals decision on how much of their skills to use while on CAP time. 

Incidentally, while I do believe EMTs can act within their training while in CAP service, I agree with you on a federal good sam law and would go even further in saying that CAP and the AF should work something out to cover CAP EMTs in some form or fashion. 

[DNall]

Obviously, if your state's good sam law has restrictions on how much protection is afforded trained medical professionals that would affect an individuals decision on how much of their skills to use while on CAP time. 

The issue is most of those laws also require medical professionals to render aid to the full extent of their training/ability, with penalties from losing license to going to jail, and most certainly includes civil suits which any private malpractice coverage they have would not cover.

The choice a CAP member would have, and this is what the court would find, is to put themselves in the position of being on a GT where they know they might encounter that situation. If they had the choice not to be there then they could have avoided the liability. Once there, they don't have a choice not to treat.

Incidentally, while I do believe EMTs can act within their training while in CAP service, I agree with you on a federal good sam law and would go even further in saying that CAP and the AF should work something out to cover CAP EMTs in some form or fashion. 

The concept I saw a while back was tied in with DMAT for the same issue. Obviously we'd like to get employment protections added as well.

[Eclipse]

The good Samaritan law is not a blanket protection from malpractice or other liability, especially for professionals.

It may well protect me if I make a bad decision about moving a victim versus letting him burn up and he becomes either charcoal or paralyzed, but I don't believe its going to mean much if an EMT administers an IV and the drug is expired or causes some sort of shock, etc.

Also, in order to invoke GoodSam as a defense, you have to defend yourself, which requires lawyers and money.
And CAP is always going to be enjoined in the initial suit, just like any other agency, and they will always have to show
cause as to why the corporation itself is not liable.

As it stands, CAP can sit back, knowing full well that most responders when faced with a real life or death situation, will do what the movies tell them to do, make the "right choice" and run into the burning building, while at the same time, actively seeking to avoid most cases where those situations would come up, and taking the stand of "we said 'no', so you're on your own".

Even in that environment, we have national activities, where NHQ commanders and staff participate, with seniors and cadets running around with stethoscopes, running triage rooms, and whole "medical detachments" - we have one major training activity which openly solicits and "trains" medical responders.

This in an environment where the official regs say "knock it off".

So imagine where we end up when the line is moved or changed.

No.  Either CAP changes things whole-scale, gets into the medical SAR business and starts seeking out related missions, coverage, and providing standardized qualification (note, I did not say training, as that can be garnered outside, just like the pilots), or things are fine the way they are.

We just need to stop recruiting EMT's with tales of them playing Dr. for CAP.

[Eclipse]

The issue is most of those laws also require medical professionals to render aid to the full extent of their training/ability, with penalties from losing license to going to jail, and most certainly includes civil suits which any private malpractice coverage they have would not cover.

The choice a CAP member would have, and this is what the court would find, is to put themselves in the position of being on a GT where they know they might encounter that situation. If they had the choice not to be there then they could have avoided the liability. Once there, they don't have a choice not to treat.

This is not really a "problem", so to speak, and can be managed by anyone willing to do so.

The laws involved, including outside licensing, are outside CAP's control, however that doesn't change our internal rules.

If you find yourself in a situation where a "duty to rescue" law conflicts with CAP's mandates, you simply are no longer operating under CAP control or protection and revert to whatever civilian or professional protections you would be afforded in that case were you to come upon the scene without CAP involved.

In a lot of cases I'd say its better for all parties to try and avoid those situations - its pretty hard to give CPR from an airplane, but if people insist on getting involved, then they accept the consequences.

Where it'd get real "courtroom muddy", is when the question of how the member could have been involved at all were it not for his CAP involvement to start with is raised.

[DNall]

In a lot of cases I'd say its better for all parties to try and avoid those situations - its pretty hard to give CPR from an airplane, but if people insist on getting involved, then they accept the consequences.

Where it'd get real "courtroom muddy", is when the question of how the member could have been involved at all were it not for his CAP involvement to start with is raised.

The member had a choice to be in CAP, and on a GT, where they have a reasonable expectation of encountering airplane crashes, etc. They made the choice to be in that situation when they fully knew the legal ramification if they did/did not provide care.

Sure you can fly around w/o much liability, and pilots love all the hours, but it doesn't do anything for anyone else in the org. W/o that strong combined arms (air, grd, cmd & ctrl) team really none of the parts get to do anything very worthwhile.

[RiverAux]

And even if you believe CAP's regs prohibit a CAP EMT from going beyond basic first aid (which I don't), if that EMT did decide to use his skills while on a AFAM, there isn't any "taking off his CAP hat" clause that would keep CAP from being sued if he did something wrong. 

Too many organizations let fear of getting sued paralyze them into not doing what they're supposed to be doing. 

[DNall]

Too many organizations let fear of getting sued paralyze them into not doing what they're supposed to be doing. 

CAP has had bad problems with that for about a decade now. Some of that is/was prompted by AF not wanting the liability on them, some is just lawyers looking for a way not to do things verses getting the job done.

[Ned]

Some of that is/was prompted by AF not wanting the liability on them, some is just lawyers looking for a way not to do things verses getting the job done.

Yup, it's just those lazy lawyers at it again. . . 

Come on. LT, you know better than that.  The Army is full of JAGs whose primary interest is protecting commanders, soldiers, and Uncle Sam from unnecessary problems. 

CAP JAGs all have the same client -- CAP, Inc.  And they have a fiduciary duty to watch out for their client.

I'm a former CAP lawyer and I'll let you in on a little secret.  "All" CAP needs to do is buy errors and omissions liability coverage (aka medical malpractice insurance) to cover our medical folks and we would be off to the races and doing everything you guys want to do.

The teensy little fly in the ointment is that the insurance would cost hundreds of thousands (or more) a year to cover our state licensed docs, nurses, medics, therapists, etc. in all 50 states, DC and Puerto Rico.

Let's say we get a bargain and get the coverage for only $500k a year.  Heck, that would only increase dues by $10 a member a year!  Do you think the membership would mind if we raised dues by roughly 25%?

But more importantly, if I had an extra half million dollars a year to play with in CAP, I might very well choose to spend it somewhere else.  Like say, airplanes or cadet scholarships that will be used every day rather than malpractice insurance for our HSOs that will be used very, very rarely.

But that's just me.


CAP is not trained or equipped to be a medical care provider.  If members happen across a genuine bona-fide emergency they can and should provide first aid up to their competence level.

Ned Lee
Former Legal Officer

[DNall]

Some of that is/was prompted by AF not wanting the liability on them, some is just lawyers looking for a way not to do things verses getting the job done.

Yup, it's just those lazy lawyers at it again. . . 

Come on. LT, you know better than that.  The Army is full of JAGs whose primary interest is protecting commanders, soldiers, and Uncle Sam from unnecessary problems. 

Since you're addressing me in my Army rank, I take it you want an Army officer response to that.

My job is to accomplish my mission at the cost of my own life & the lives of my troops if necessary, and it will be necessary at times. The lawyer's job is to give me advice (not instructions) on how to do that without ending up in jail after the fact. And then, regardless of how I do it, to defend me by threatening others with legal action or whatever else he needs to do to keep them off my back. Unless and until I break the faith, his job is to protect that faith on his field of battle as I do on mine.

I'll tell you what I very regularly use JAG officers for is threatening civilian employers on behalf of my troops by knowingly feeding them a complete misinterpretation of USERRA.

Their job is to use the law to further our mission. It is not to reinterpret the law in a way that prevents us from doing it.

I'm a former CAP lawyer and I'll let you in on a little secret.  "All" CAP needs to do is buy errors and omissions liability coverage (aka medical malpractice insurance) to cover our medical folks and we would be off to the races and doing everything you guys want to do.

The teensy little fly in the ointment is that the insurance would cost hundreds of thousands (or more) a year to cover our state licensed docs, nurses, medics, therapists, etc. in all 50 states, DC and Puerto Rico.

Let's say we get a bargain and get the coverage for only $500k a year.  Heck, that would only increase dues by $10 a member a year!  Do you think the membership would mind if we raised dues by roughly 25%?

But more importantly, if I had an extra half million dollars a year to play with in CAP, I might very well choose to spend it somewhere else.  Like say, airplanes or cadet scholarships that will be used every day rather than malpractice insurance for our HSOs that will be used very, very rarely.

But that's just me.


CAP is not trained or equipped to be a medical care provider.  If members happen across a genuine bona-fide emergency they can and should provide first aid up to their competence level.

Well first, no one here is proposing we start running an ambulance service. We're looking for something more like combat medic services for teams that are going to be in the worst possible circumstances.

For example: in terrain where an ambulance can't get remotely close to, or in post-disaster areas where there isn't a lot of established medical facilities in operation & response times are long.

Into those circumstances we would NOT be doing any kind of medical mission. We are sending in SaR, eval, and response teams. They are there for a completely different reason, but if one of them or a civilian is seriously hurt, we need to be able to stabilize them till a specialized medical team can get there to evac them.

FEMA says that's the standard. They say if you can't do that then you're no better than the church youth group over there. So you're going to go pass out water cause that's all your good for, and stay out our way while the real professionals save people's lives.

So 500k? That's buy us 1.5 more planes. Big freakin deal. Hell, by fixing this alone you'd be able to ramp up ES ops in a way that'd bring increased membership more than adequate to cover that low cost.

I think what we're all saying here is CAP's response capability has fallen away significantly since pre-9/11 because of tightening industry standards & related legal issues. That needs to get fixed or we might as well cease to exist - which you certainly see played out in our retention numbers.

I think the proposed solution we all agree on calls for congressional action to provide that coverage, at least while in AFAM status.

[RiverAux]

Let's say we get a bargain and get the coverage for only $500k a year.  Heck, that would only increase dues by $10 a member a year!  Do you think the membership would mind if we raised dues by roughly 25%?

You're assuming that CAP would pay all the costs and that the AF wouldn't kick in anything, which I don't think would be the case.

Heck, we're already paying 1.8 million in liability insurance costs right now.  An additional 500K would increase CAP's Ops and Maintenance budget by  about 5-10% and would only be half the cost of all the paid wing administrators that have been hired (who we got along without for 95% of our history)

[Ned]

[In my Army role, ]  the lawyer's job is to give me advice (not instructions) on how to do that without ending up in jail after the fact. And then, regardless of how I do it, to defend me by threatening others with legal action or whatever else he needs to do to keep them off my back. Unless and until I break the faith, his job is to protect that faith on his field of battle as I do on mine.

[ . . .]

Their job is to use the law to further our mission. It is not to reinterpret the law in a way that prevents us from doing it.

Exactly.

Now how's that any different than CAP?

As long as you follow your CAP orders and regulations (including the prohibition on HSOs rendering non-emergency care), the CAP JAGs will back you.

Well first, no one here is proposing we start running an ambulance service. We're looking for something more like combat medic services for teams that are going to be in the worst possible circumstances.

I guess that's the point.  "Combat medic services" is not our mission.

It never has been.  And unless there are unimaginable changes in our training, resources, and utilization, it's not gonna be.

FEMA says that's the standard. They say if you can't do that then you're no better than the church youth group over there. So you're going to go pass out water cause that's all your good for, and stay out our way while the real professionals save people's lives.

So, if we don't meet FEMA standards for activities that we don't do, then we aren't "real professionals."   

I daresay we don't meet FEMA's standards for swift-water rescue, either.  Or heavy urban SAR.  Or a whole bunch of things that might be necessary in any conceivable disaster or man-made calamity.

We just aren't "combat medic services" providers.  No matter how much we wish we might be.

So 500k? That's buy us 1.5 more planes. Big freakin deal. Hell, by fixing this alone you'd be able to ramp up ES ops in a way that'd bring increased membership more than adequate to cover that low cost.

That's quite a world view to be able to state that a half million dollars isn't a big deal for CAP, Inc.  If you don't think a couple of extra airplanes is enough to be concerned about, how about hiring another half-dozen folks for CP?  (The part of CAP that actually involves the majority of our members.)

I think what we're all saying here is CAP's response capability has fallen away significantly since pre-9/11 because of tightening industry standards & related legal issues. That needs to get fixed or we might as well cease to exist - which you certainly see played out in our retention numbers.

Our retention numbers have not changed significantly in the last 20 years.  CAP has always cycled up and down.  We are in no danger of "ceasing to exist".

Unless of course, an HSO decides to blow off the regulations and provide medical care outside of a bona-fide emergency.

For which we have no insurance.

That's a danger which could cause us to "cease to exist" very quickly.

I think the proposed solution we all agree on calls for congressional action to provide that coverage, at least while in AFAM status.

I don't disagree that the best fix would be legislative.  But I think it is far easier to talk about such legislation than it is to draft a version and get it passed.  It would have to be a wonderfully complex bit of legislation, and would inevitably come with a great deal of nationally mandated training  and record-keeping.

[MIKE]

This whole thread, and every EMT and HSO thread is just [peeing] into the wind.

[RiverAux]

I guess that's the point.  "Combat medic services" is not our mission.

You know that was just an analogy. 

I don't think it is unreasonable for an organization that does promote itself as a search and rescue force to be able to provide more than bandaids to the people that we're looking for. 

[Ned]

I don't think it is unreasonable for an organization that does promote itself as a search and rescue force to be able to provide more than bandaids to the people that we're looking for. 

Except that we don't promote ourselves as any sort of rescue force.  We have ground teams that composed of highly flexible folks that have trained to provide a multitude of services.  But rescue in the sense of victim extraction from aircraft, ruined structures, or debris and provision of subsequent medical treatment is not what we do.

We are not equipped to do it.  We are not trained to do it.

I'd like to think that our members who encounter a life-or-death situation will do their best to save the victims and provide first aid.  That can only be a good thing, and our regulations already permit first aid in such situations.

But that is a far cry from the new mission that some members are proposing we undertake -- provision of medical services in an emergency.

[DNall]

[In my Army role, ]  the lawyer's job is to give me advice (not instructions) on how to do that without ending up in jail after the fact. And then, regardless of how I do it, to defend me by threatening others with legal action or whatever else he needs to do to keep them off my back. Unless and until I break the faith, his job is to protect that faith on his field of battle as I do on mine. [ . . .]

Their job is to use the law to further our mission. It is not to reinterpret the law in a way that prevents us from doing it.

Exactly.

Now how's that any different than CAP?

As long as you follow your CAP orders and regulations (including the prohibition on HSOs rendering non-emergency care), the CAP JAGs will back you.

That prohibition on care has been added in the last few years, in many people's opinions due to over active lawyers allowing fears of liability to restrict the capability rather than finding a way, thru the law, to protect us while we drive forward with that care.

Well first, no one here is proposing we start running an ambulance service. We're looking for something more like combat medic services for teams that are going to be in the worst possible circumstances.

I guess that's the point.  "Combat medic services" is not our mission.

It never has been.  And unless there are unimaginable changes in our training, resources, and utilization, it's not gonna be.

I'm not sure you understand what a combat medic does. They are never the mission. They don't go out to provide care. They are not part of a medical unit (well they could be, but not for the purposes of this discussion). They go along with operators on normal missions - in this case a SaR mission - and are there to provide stabilizing care first of all to the operators, and secondarily to other folks you may come across.

It is no different than first aid. The difference is we're talking about a higher risk SaR/DR mission where basic first aid is not going to be adequate because there isn't accessible civilian EMS in a reasonable time after injury.

Let me give you a real world example. Galveston Island here a couple weeks ago. I had ground teams down there running ELTs. There were no EMS services available on the island for a long time, and they're still limited. The only medical evacuation available was via helicopter - there were no ambulances & no hospital. Yet, we're walking around in some serious debris fields with all kinds of nasty stuff around. Early on we did encounter some people that needed help too. A bandaid & some peroxide isn't going to fix those problems till I can get them to specialized medical care. I need to stabilize seriously hurt people till EMS can get there. In that circumstance it could be a few hours, not call 911 (there was no cell service) or jump in the van & lets drive down to the hospital.

I need someone qualified & capable of taking care of us so that we can operate in that environment. That's just sound risk mgmt, which is why it's in the FEMA standards. You don't need it for UDF & you don't need it for 90% of missions. When you do need it though, you really need it.

FEMA says that's the standard. They say if you can't do that then you're no better than the church youth group over there. So you're going to go pass out water cause that's all your good for, and stay out our way while the real professionals save people's lives.

So, if we don't meet FEMA standards for activities that we don't do, then we aren't "real professionals."   

I daresay we don't meet FEMA's standards for swift-water rescue, either.  Or heavy urban SAR.  Or a whole bunch of things that might be necessary in any conceivable disaster or man-made calamity.

We just aren't "combat medic services" providers.  No matter how much we wish we might be.

Swift water is on the WSAR list too even for type III/IV teams. That would/will have to be added to the training as we move toward compliance.

Urban SaR means collapsed structure, mountain means over 14k ft. We don't do either of those missions. Right now we don't meet the standards to do AFAM search for missing aircraft or persons in any circumstance. Almost everyone agrees that has to change (movement to type III/IV teams). The debate about adding EMTs is if we should also be able to do type I/II activities. The very strong opinion from the field is that we have that capability & need to get there, the debate is legal/financial to make it happen & a timeline.

So 500k? That's buy us 1.5 more planes. Big freakin deal. Hell, by fixing this alone you'd be able to ramp up ES ops in a way that'd bring increased membership more than adequate to cover that low cost.

That's quite a world view to be able to state that a half million dollars isn't a big deal for CAP, Inc.  If you don't think a couple of extra airplanes is enough to be concerned about, how about hiring another half-dozen folks for CP?  (The part of CAP that actually involves the majority of our members.)

I've been a cadet programs officer almost my whole career, and I'll tell you flat out that half a dozen employees, scholarships, additional NCSAs, etc are all very very low priorities next to getting our act together on the ES side. If we're able to respond into major disaster areas immediately after an incident & provide SaR/DR services on par with industry standards, then there's suddenly a whole lot more for CAP to do, and a whole lot more reason for our members to train & specialize. That brings excitement to the ranks. It retains people versus dumping them like happened when we couldn't deliver after 9/11. People come here to make a difference, and we need to give them the opportunity to do that.

I think what we're all saying here is CAP's response capability has fallen away significantly since pre-9/11 because of tightening industry standards & related legal issues. That needs to get fixed or we might as well cease to exist - which you certainly see played out in our retention numbers.

Our retention numbers have not changed significantly in the last 20 years.  CAP has always cycled up and down.  We are in no danger of "ceasing to exist".

Unless of course, an HSO decides to blow off the regulations and provide medical care outside of a bona-fide emergency.

For which we have no insurance.

That's a danger which could cause us to "cease to exist" very quickly.

That's a misleading statement about retention. It's leveled back out now to where it was prior to 9/11. We took on a lot of people after that & lost most of them when they realized CAP doesn't do nearly as much as the charter says. And leveled out to absolutely unacceptable percentages. CAP's retention has always been horrible. That's chiefly because we over sell & under deliver. The over-sell part of that is a recruiting education issue. The under-deliver part is not. We need to start delivering.

I think the proposed solution we all agree on calls for congressional action to provide that coverage, at least while in AFAM status.

I don't disagree that the best fix would be legislative.  But I think it is far easier to talk about such legislation than it is to draft a version and get it passed.  It would have to be a wonderfully complex bit of legislation, and would inevitably come with a great deal of nationally mandated training  and record-keeping.

Yeah it would come with a lot of training & record keeping. Actually, I think it would spin the HSO career field under the governance of DMAT & utilize much of their system. I might just have seen a couple drafts over the last couple years, and I'll let you know when it looks like we can take it to cmte. In the meantime, it'd be a lot more useful if CAP would work with AF, FEMA, and DMAT to propose the solution they want legislated, cause it's pretty darn difficult to get congressmen to mandate things down on those parties when they don't see the orgs complaining about the problem.

[PHall]

DNall, Ned Lee is a Retired Major (Inf) from the California National Guard.
He may have an idea or two on what a Combat Medic does...

[Dragoon]

You missed a key point in your diatribe below.  You did not give us a single name of a person we can use to verify your claims.

In other words it's still rumor.

If you have concrete knowlege that someone at FEMA or someone at your TAG who decided to exclude CAP because of a lack of NIMS compliance, just give me a name, a job title and a phone number.  I'll call 'em and have a chat.

If you can't do it, it's just rumor.  Sorry.  There are many possible reasons that your wing didn't get to do more.  The most common reason is that the decision maker didn't know what CAP could provide, not that they know CAP and decided that because of a lack of NIMS, they'd exclude us.

By the way, so far not a single person has provided a credible example of CAP being excluded for this reason.  And without evidence.......

Gotta chime in here - it has been two years since the threads started on "The Sky is Falling!  We're not NIMS certified!  We aren't going to get our National Mandated ID cards!  And we'll never get another mission ever again!"

So far, the mission tempo nationwide hasn't changed.  And I've yet to find one credible story of us being excluded because we aren't on the bleeding edge of NIMS.

So here's the challenge - if anyone knows, for a FACT, that CAP was excluded from a major mission because we aren't the sterling example of NIMS/ICS compliance, please PM me with the following:

1.  Description and dates of the incident
2.  A description of what CAP did and didn't get to do.
3.  The name and contact info for the decison maker who chose to exclude CAP.

I will happily call the guy and verify the veracity of the story, and post the results here.

What I've seen being the major problem with getting called out is that CAP doesn't keep the lines of commo active with all the myriad folks who can run missions, so we only get involved when USAF gets asked for assistance, and they pass it down to us.   In other words, a failure of marketing rather than a failure in compliance.  And that's been a problem for at least 25 years.  We're just not well wired on the local level, and many missions are local.

I believe I stated that already.

1) Ike came thru here.

2) What we did:

a) There was a federal ICP in clear lake. CAP was not invited to even have a liaison present. There was a massive federal mission going on, and no place in it for CAP.

b) We flew a couple sorties for FEMA, which honestly were taking picture of their relief effort to go in power point presentations to their bosses about what they were doing. It had nothing to do with damage assessment or anyone's response.

c) We flew a couple sightseeing flights for NWS forecasters, not assessment or even academic documentation.

d) we ran an ELT mission. There were thousands going off. They were all obviously bogus. Coast Guard didn't care, waiting for them to die, didn't care what we were responding to, and wouldn't respond to any themselves unless they thought they were legit emergencies. AFRCC wanted to close the mission after a couple days, but we kept it open to keep turning stuff off as training, but it was more sightseeing than accomplishing anything meaningful.

e) We flew a massive air photo mission for the state. However, none of that was really about assessment for the purposes of disaster response. It was more for academic study of the damage, state insurance board, etc. I'm not at all against us doing that, secondary to our federal and/or emergency response missions. It may well help make decisions about how they rebuild so it won't be so bad, or help to plan for future disasters.

f) we also sent volunteers our to PODs to hand out supplies. That started out with a small city out of the major damage area complaining on teh news they weren't getting federal support, and getting supplies from the houston food bank thru a local church, and CAP got asked by a former member to help out. When FEMA got pressured into sending over supplies, we helped out at their location along side little kids, church groups, and anyone else that felt like showing up.

What we didn't do:
- any meaningful disaster response activity at all
- any actual SaR mission
- any ground mission other than non-distress UDF & look good on the news
- much of anything on behalf of the federal govt.

3) The decision makers involved were FEMA primarily on the civilian side, TAG & SOC on the state side.

My point is we have capabilities and are not allowed to do anything of consequence cause we're mere volunteers. It has nothing to do with some online courses or not. I agree that no one really cares about that crap.

It does have a lot to do with actual training/qualifications/capabilities/standards though. What we have is a huge joke by comparison to industry standards & really doesn't put us in a position to do anything meaningful.

FEMA has other standards. Are they black & white do exactly this or don't show up? Of course not, but we're no where even remotely close to those standards, and that's our reputation, which in turn defines the missions we get or don't get.

On the air side, those guys want to fly. If they get that done & feel like they're doing something for someone in the process then all the better. On the ground we're a lot more limited. It has to actually be disaster response/SaR type stuff. You can't survey birds or environmental conditions with a GT - at least you can't get people to train for GT so they can do that worthless stuff.