Will CAP ever give GSAR serious attention?

[RiverAux]

Okay, we all know that SAR missions have dropped like a rock as ELT missions have gone away and that missing airplane searches haven't been common for quite some time (a good thing, of course).  CAP has focused more attention on airborne disaster relief missions in recent years, but the major ones are also few and far between while minor disasters rarely generate more than a few air sorties and rarely any ground work.

I have always thought that our largest single untapped pool of mission capability is in ground SAR.  There are lost person searches going on all the time throughout the country and while CAP does participate in a few here and there, we just don't seem to be on many people's call out lists for ground SAR teams.

Granted, we don't have the capability for technical high angle SAR, but thats no big deal -- plenty of SAR cases on nice flat ground not requiring any rope work.  And its true that our ground SAR mission planning training is very, very weak, but since in all cases we would be working under the direct control of some other agency, that isn't terribly critical.

We all know that this is primarily an issue between CAP squadrons/groups/Wings and local officials.  Educate them about our capabilities on the ground, and they will probably call us.  We've got that power now and the AF seems to have been pretty good about granting AFAM status to lost person searches lately, so funding isn't a holdup like it can be for local disaster mission requests. 

But, what can CAP do at the national level?

1.  Well, first they need to highlight ground SAR in the CAPabilities handbook.  In the "Overview" section ground SAR is only mentioned in passing (we list having 900 vans and then happen to mention they're used by ground SAR teams).  Under "Personnel", ground SAR is mentioned pretty far down the list, but at least its there.  We're the largest ground SAR organization in the country and we should make that known.

2.  I think there needs to be some strong encouragement from NHQ that working on developing ground SAR missions is a priority.  As CAP is the Civil AIR Patrol, we have a very air-centric culture as might be expected and I just don't think that ground SAR is very high on anyone's agenda, especially the pilots that dominate the organization. 

3.  Ramp up the Ground Branch Director training qualifications significantly.  As I said, we're probably not going to be running any missions ourselves, but in order to conduct decent CAP exercises our GBDs need to know more about ground SAR planning than they do now.  We need GBDs that know more than how to hide an ELT. 

4.  I hate to open this can of worms, but we need some physical fitness standards for ground team members.   

5.  In the past I have suggested mission-related skills promotions be given for those with military background that gave them some of the skills we expect to see on ground teams.  That didn't go over well here.  As an alternative, perhaps we should think about giving them for those with certain NASAR qualifications as a way to encourage more ground SAR people to join.  We would still expect them to test for CAP ES qualifications just as we do with pilots and radio folks, but give them a leg up in rank.  Much as I hate our mission-related skills system, so long as we have one, we might as well try to make it work for us and help get us some more ground SAR folks. 

[cap235629]

we are looking at cross training to NASAR standards.  I don't know why CAP doesn't adopt them.  There is a lot of similarity.  The rope work is there. What exactly does CAP have against ropework? 

[Stonewall]

What exactly does CAP have against ropework?

The fact that we employ children cadets as ground team members and the liability is too high when having 15, 16 or even 17 year old cadets humping 120' of rope that may or may not meet certain safety standards.  Not to mention the cost other hardware, currency requirements and training.

I've been a member for 23 years and have never been on a ground team that wasn't made up primarily of cadets.  So unless you have a solid team of adult members who meet some sort of national or state standard, you'll probably be wondering why CAP isn't more involved in GSAR work for a long time.

[NJMEDIC]

Cap needs to adopt the national FEMA standards to be FEMA typed as a GSAR asset.  This means Adopting NSAR standards which CAP is a member of. I know in NJ cadets present a problem with the State Police who are charged under State law to manage missing person searches and for searches of "People at Risk". The Child Labor laws in NJ are the problem which I understand.  It also means paying more attention to Ground ops but we are the "Civil Air Patrol" so us ground pounders will always take a back seat to the Air Dales.

[RiverAux]

Folks, this is a thread about CAP's approach to ground SAR, not a "why aren't we used more by other agencies" thread. 

[Al Sayre]

If we want more missions of the GSAR type, the first thing we need to do is change our procedures for callouts.  It's not that they don't want us, but that it's a hassle for them to request us since we respond as a Federal asset via a State MOU.  I'm an IC and on the notification lists and I get calls on a pretty regular basis.  When I explain the request procedure i.e. "Have MEMA call the NOC @ (phone #) and request us.  Your local MEMA Rep is Mr. Joe Blow @ (123) 456-7890, he can make that call for you".  Most local agencies don't want to get the state involved unless it's a really major event, so they don't make the call...

[RiverAux]

Hmmm, in the CAPabilities booklet that we're supposed to be giving out to any local agency willingto talk to us, we're telling them to call AFRCC directly to request us for SAR missions....

Seems like our advertising is in conflict with what we're agreeing to with individual states. 

[Al Sayre]

The situation in MS is that the State is the one with the MOU and it says that the locals have to run requests by them first, since they have primary responsibility (your State may vary)...  The reality is I've gotten a call with a mission number within 15-20 minutes of the first call when they followed the procedure.  It's just that some of the locals don't want to follow the procedure.   

[SarMaster]

Every REDCAP involving a crash I have been involved in (19 ofthem) CAP has been deployed right next to the Sheriff, Fire and EMS.  When we respond next to a NASAR typed team we really look unprepared and not up to par.  The whole cadet thing with the rucksacks doesn't help much either. I agree we need to get NASAR qualified.  Most of the time the sheriff (both air and ground) can be on scene before our teams can be en route.    Again... If we are going to play SAR we need to act and train like the real responders...not like the kids!

[wuzafuzz]

"I hate to open this can of worms, but we need some physical fitness standards for ground team members."

If we run some realistic exercises for the terrain we work in, the physical fitness part will take care of itself.

If somone can do the job, leave them alone.

[isuhawkeye]

Since I have some experience in this I think I will chime in.

I had the unique opportunity to build some very successfull relationships. and participate in a number of missing person cases.  here are a few of my observations

1.  Recognise that every missing person case may be a law enforcement event.  This may mean that the lead law enforcement agency may restrict participation to CAPer's who are over 18

2.  Learn the specifics of your state MOU with AFRCC.  In Iowa the county sheriff has authority to request assistance directly.  sell that simple call and you can provide cap "free" top the end user

3.  Recognise that your ground team certification is comparable to NASAR's SAR tech II.  Train to the best of your ability, and be ready to discuss the differences in certifications


4.  Be knowledgeable .  Know that NASAR does not require rope work, repelling, or hundreds of feet of rope. 

5.  Learn the teams in your area, and their procedures.  Train with them

Build relationships and there is no reason that CAP cant play in the missing person search arena

[Eclipse]

Those who wish to grind an ax might want to start with the fact that CAP is not a first-responder agency.  Even with ELT's, our job is outside the golden hour in support of other agencies on a secondary and tertiary basis.

If you want to be a golden-hour responder, look elsewhere, there's plenty of agencies that can use your help.

[RiverAux]

Again folks, this is about CAP's approach to GSAR on a national level.  Can we stay focused on that?  There are plenty of other threads to discuss local coordination issues.   

[arajca]

I think the question should be broadened to ask if CAP will give serious attention to ground operations in general.

If you think GSAR has gotten the short end of the stick, mission staff hasn't even gotten to touch the stick.

[Flying Pig]

I think CAP will always be slanted towards the aviation side.  No, I dont think CAP will ever progress in the area of Ground SAR.  CAP is to restricted on itself.  No repelling, no medical capabilities, no extraction capabilities beyond carrying the person.  No Government SAR is ever going to work with CAP in areas such as hoist rescues, Swift Water Rescues, High Angle Technical, etc.  Sure, there may be individual units that may set up working relationships, but CAP as a whole will never progress that way.  We have the market on aviation to a degree because of the nature of being able to bring 16 aircraft to bear on a area like in the Steve Fossett search.  But in the areas of ground SAR, short of walking around in orange vests with whistles and canteens yelling the victims name, I think thats about as far as we are going to get. 

[Mustang]

No, I dont think CAP will ever progress in the area of Ground SAR.  CAP is to restricted on itself.  No repelling, no medical capabilities, no extraction capabilities beyond carrying the person.

By insisting on the above, CAP's lawyers have eliminated any possibility of CAP becoming a credible ground SAR agency.

[lordmonar]

I agree CAP's ground teams will never be used extensively by local agencies....first and foremost because of Posse Comutadas (sp?).

Secondly because we can't generate large teams in the time most search manageres need them.

I think CAP would do better to form teams of ALOs (Air Liason Officers) who are embedded with exiting ground teams and coordinate air to ground operations.

[Eclipse]

I agree CAP's ground teams will never be used extensively by local agencies....first and foremost because of Posse Comutadas Posse Comitatus(sp?).

(spelling correction at no charge)

This directly conflicts with my personal experience, however I guess "extensive" is subjective enough, and our work with local agencies
has required a constant tendering of relationships many CC's are unwilling to do.

[N Harmon]

Those who wish to grind an ax might want to start with the fact that CAP is not a first-responder agency.

Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD-8 ) defines a "first-responder" as "those individuals who in the early stages of an incident are responsible for the protection and preservation of life, property, evidence, and the environment, including emergency response providers as defined in section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101), as well as emergency management, public health, clinical care, public works, and other skilled support personnel (such as equipment operators) that provide immediate support services during prevention, response, and recovery operations."

When I hear "CAP is not a first responder", it annoys me the same as "CAP is only volunteers" annoys me. It's an excuse for not being on the ball. And the more we repeat it the more true it will (has) become true.

The idea of being a "first responder" has nothing to do with the "golden hour", but everything to do with promptness and a sense of urgency in responding. CAP has no forseeable need to be a lights & siren, go quick responder to anything. But when we get the call, and our first plane isn't off the ground until 4 hours later? We should never be content that sort of response.

[Eclipse]

When I hear "CAP is not a first responder", it annoys me the same as "CAP is only volunteers" annoys me. It's an excuse for not being on the ball. And the more we repeat it the more true it will (has) become true.

No, it is a literal definition of our capabilities and mission tasking.

A legal definition of what a first responder is doesn't change that fact.  We are not 911, nor do we staff as such, by design.

Our highest priority missions - ELT and missing aircraft searches, take several hours just to light up (which has nothing to do with downstream response by the actual assets).  When we had SARSAT coverage, it was 2-4+ hours before we were even tasked, let alone the reasonable response of volunteers who have day jobs.

We don't provide medical response, and our DR support is either part of a planned ramp-up with everyone else, or secondary once the
professional agencies realize they need assistance.

We are not a First Responder agency, period.  Regardless of whether or not you can stretch some legal definition to fit your argument.