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.

[Flying Pig]

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

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.

It has nothing to do with the desires or mindset of the organization.  It has to do with their KNOWN capabilities and a measurable known response.  A first responder is the person who is called and has a duty and capability to respond immediately when the incident happens.  CAP isnt a first responder.  Sorry.  Guess how we do ELT Searches in my 6017 sq. mile county?  The Sheriff gets the call, dispatch calls out to the hangar.  As a Deputy Sheriff Pilot, I call the CAP Group Commander and give him a heads up that he will be getting call, only because I am a CAP member.  If I were not, nobody from the S.O. would call CAP.  Then I go up in the Sheriffs aircraft and Wing Null until a CAP aircraft launches a few hours later.  On top of that, I am in the process of getting a Becker for my work plane.  Who is the first responder in my county?  The Sheriff is.  CAP is a resource.  The Sheriff isn't even required to use them.

Now there may be specific areas in the US that may treat CAP as a first responder based on local resource availabilities, but CAP as an organization is not.

[Short Field]

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. 

Planning is done in the Planning Section, not in the Ops Section by the Branch Directors.  Make attendance at the 5 day Inland SAR Planning Course mandantory for PSCs.  Currently, a  CAP PSC is just a quick sign-off on the way to IC - which might explain why so many of our ICs don't know how to plan a search.

[Mustang]

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.

An excellent idea!

[Eclipse]

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. 

Planning is done in the Planning Section, not in the Ops Section by the Branch Directors.  Make attendance at the 5 day Inland SAR Planning Course mandantory for PSCs.  Currently, a  CAP PSC is just a quick sign-off on the way to IC - which might explain why so many of our ICs don't know how to plan a search.

Not in my neck, however the failure to "stay in your lane" is a problem with planning where I play also.

Planning is "next", and should not be involved in tactics, Branch Directors are "now", and should stay out of "next".  The two meet
at the OSC and where inputs and information are requested.

[SarMaster]

Right on Reference the PSC.... I don't think the PSC SQTR does any justice.. It really doesn't have anything about mission planning, Intel, Situational awareness... and so on. Defiantly Inland SAR School should be required.

[Flying Pig]

When/Where is the Inland SAR school?

[isuhawkeye]

The inland SAR school is a great program, but it may not be the end all and be all.  I would recommend a few programs.

1.  Position specific training

http://www.vdem.state.va.us/train/trainresources/NIMS%20ICS_Position_Specific_Training_Annoucement_6_30_09.doc

2.  Search theory training

http://www.nasar.org/nasar/course.php?id=26

http://www.eri-online.com/Managing_Land_Search_Operat.php

http://www.uscg.mil/tcyorktown/Ops/SAR/Inland/inland.asp

PS.  Flotilla 4 Coast Guard Auxiliary will be hosting the inland SAR course in June

[Short Field]

1. The FY10 National Search and Rescue School Inland SAR Planning Course schedule is listed below.
Number Dates Location
(Specific locations are subject to change)
Application
Deadline
10-01 19 – 23 Oct 09 Arcadia NP, ME 07 Sep 09
10-02 16 – 20 Nov 09 Savannah, GA 05 Oct 09
10-03 07 – 11 Dec 09 San Luis Obispo, CA 02 Nov 09
10-04 11 – 15 Jan 10 Ft Sam Houston (San Antonio), TX 01 Dec 09
10-05 08 – 12 Feb 10 Jackson, TN 04 Jan 10
10-06 01 – 05 Mar 10 Santa Fe, NM 19 Jan 10
10-07 19 – 23 Apr 10 TRACEN Yorktown, VA 15 Mar 10
10-08 10 – 14 May 10 Harrisburg, PA 29 Mar 10
10-09 21 – 25 Jun 10 Des Moines, IA 04 May 10
10-10 12 – 16 Jul 10 Salt Lake City, UT 01 Jun 10
10-11 02 – 06 Aug 10 Duluth, MN 28 Jun 10
10-12 20 – 24 Sep 10 Buffalo, NY 13 Aug 10
2. The Inland SAR planning class is not for beginners. It is an advanced course for experienced on-scene
decision makers, planners, operations leaders, and direct support staff members. It presents mathematically
based search planning tools with solid theoretical underpinnings, along with some allied topics, focused on
improving overall SAR response and success.
3. Openings in each class are limited and must be shared between a variety of agencies and student
backgrounds, experience levels, and organizational tiers. While the school accepts applications directly, it is
preferred the state or agency SAR Coordinator review applications to make certain he/she is kept abreast of
what is happening in the state and to ensure the right people are selected.
a. Application deadlines are approximately 40 - 45 days before class start dates. A welcome package will
be sent to confirm attendance approximately 30 days before class start dates and students must firmly
commit to attend at that time. Interested agencies should contact the school early to reserve quotas.
b. CAP members must apply through their wing training office to CAP National HQ only.

[Eclipse]

Something else needs to be said here as well - the SAR world is a Wondrous, Magical place filled primarily with people who have some sort of mental deficiency in that they do things both professionally and in a volunteer capacity that most "sane" people would not consider as an option.

Whether its running into a burning building, enjoying walking into a dark alley alone, or just standing on a corner making sure no one steals the street signs, when you could be home warm, watching Desperate Housewives, and updating your FaceSpace status, there's room for everyone, but just like high-school plays, only a few kids get to be on stage, and the rest play important roles behind the scenes in stagecraft.

Recognizing and embracing your place in the universe and the "Grande Scheme" is an important character building step for young people, and a sanity-check for adults.

Believing you can cowboy around the world "saving people" because you have a First Aid card and a tactical vest, when professionals recognize the situation as treacherous and lethal, just means you don't "get it" (...fools rush in, where angels fear to tread).  We all know these guys - a car full of gear, ten different windbreakers, and the first on scene for anything...except their formalized training is minimal, real-world experience even less, and their interpersonal skills?  Well...

It also means that you will likely have a short, or shortened career in CAP, which is conservative by nature, constricted in some cases by law, and always, always, disdains people who write checks they have no chance of cashing.

However, understanding that some things are out of reasonable reach, and working on what you can do, puts you in a position of actually doing some good, versus constantly wailing and gnashing teeth about what you can't do.

[RiverAux]

Once again, can we keep on topic?  We've got other "CAP is not a first responder" threads and once again this is not a "Why won't others call us thread?"

It is about the approach CAP takes towards ground SAR training and related issues. 

[Major Carrales]

Once again, can we keep on topic?  We've got other "CAP is not a first responder" threads and once again this is not a "Why won't others call us thread?"

It is about the approach CAP takes towards ground SAR training and related issues.

Give it up...the populace wants to discuss what they want to.  No need to frustrate yourself.  I say that with concern for your mental e-health.


The fact is that without significant funding and internal "mandate" of units to have effective ground team assets they will not develop beyond what is possible.

There are many Ground Teams in operation that are the result of clear diligence from dedicated CAP Officers (and cadets, sorry to those that seem to find cadets repugnant...but they do and can serve a purpose) who have built up trailers full of deployable CAP assets.

With no champions to guide the process and no resources the limit is well places.  Only a networking of GT folk in the full operation of their programs can develop the necessary gravitas to get national on the bandwagon.

[RiverAux]

The fact is that without significant funding and internal "mandate" of units to have effective ground team assets they will not develop beyond what is possible.

Thats the thing that irritates me -- it really wouldn't take any significant amount of money to make a huge difference in the GT program.  Even in CAP where money isn't exactly overflowing,  GSAR training costs almost nothing compared to the amount of money spent on just ferrying aircraft to and from SAREXs.   

There are many Ground Teams in operation that are the result of clear diligence from dedicated CAP Officers (and cadets, sorry to those that seem to find cadets repugnant...but they do and can serve a purpose)

You are definetely right about that. 

It is just frustrating that we're not really all that far off at a national level from what we would need to do to become the premier non-technical GSAR resource in most of the US.

But, I'm pretty confident that the pilots are eventually going to realize that the best way to get air sorties is by getting the locals used to calling in CAP ground teams.   

[N Harmon]

It is just frustrating that we're not really all that far off at a national level from what we would need to do to become the premier non-technical GSAR resource in most of the US.

I think there in lies the problem. Like so many other things in CAP, success is best attained by starting locally and then expanding outward. If you try to change things at a national level first, you will find a lot of resistance like seen in this thread.

A few years back my squadron started on the road to becoming as best a non-technical air and ground SAR resource as we possibly could be, within the regulatory and legal limitations of CAP. But even without the regulations and laws, there still existed many logistical and operational challenges we had to overcome. As an example, one was streamlining our notification process by using a calling service (www.call-em-all.com) instead of a phone tree.

And so far we have had a lot of success. We have been called upon to assist in the early stage of a missing persons search. And just last year we responded quickly to requests for aerial photographs. That mission was featured in the CAP news.

So, it can be done. CAP should not stand for ES personnel who, when called upon for a mission, go home to launder their uniform and maybe grab a bite to eat before heading out to the airport...because, "we're not first responders so you can't expect me to drop everything for a mission" (actual excuse given by a CAP member). It's understandable if you can't be available, but if you commit yourself to being available then [darn]it, show some sense of purpose.

Also, other units in Michigan Wing have similarly ramped up their capabilities and are now looking at combining into a wing-wide response capability. Our standard is to have an aircraft in the air and a ground team rolling within an hour of receiving the call. Yes there will be challenges to overcome to make that reality, and we're working on them. But everybody agrees it can be done, and that simple fact makes all the difference. It would be a nightmare to try something like this on a national level at this time. But, maybe some day.

[RiverAux]

I agree that individual units have a lot of leeway to develop an outstanding GSAR program and with enough effort can probably get involved with the local agencies running GSAR missions. 

However, there are still some national and wing-level issues that stunt such efforts which I brought up in the first post.  The local unit is still ultimately at their mercy since they have the power to approve mission requests from outside agencies and have the power of the purse in regards to whether you can get funding to do local training exercises. 

Even if all the changes I recommend were made, it would still ultimately fall upon the squadron to do the hard work.  It will always be that way.  But, NHQ and Wing can certainly make it easier for them. 

[NavLT]

I guess the whole point of this thread is that national has created a function of Ground Search and Rescue in our SAR mission (IE having GBD, GTL, GTM etc in our quals) but lacks the drive to ensure that we adequately train in this area, work with local governments to get used for this function.

I see the argument about top down or bottom up as kind of silly as successsfull organizations know it takes both.

CAP will never be taken seriously in the ground SAR universe when the majority of the training is light and the missions rarely make you use the 72 hour pack/skills.  The cadet part of this has more meaning to CAP than the rest of the world.  In Virginia the state will certifiy a 16 year old to be a state Field team member and they get used by law enforcement on all kinds of missions with little or no hesitation because they are state certified.

If CAP wanted to grow into GSAR then they would work more on getting reciprocity with NSAR for our quals (which would mean improving our quals and testing).  They would establish more MOUs at the wing level for call outs and they would probably look at getting a MD on national staff to allow us to function as  BLS agency in states.  None of which is fast or easy but neither was putting a man on the moon but we did it.....

V/R
LT J.

[arajca]

If CAP wanted to grow into GSAR then they would work more on getting reciprocity with NSAR for our quals (which would mean improving our quals and testing).  They would establish more MOUs at the wing level for call outs and they would probably look at getting a MD on national staff to allow us to function as  BLS agency in states.  None of which is fast or easy but neither was putting a man on the moon but we did it.....

V/R
LT J.

CAP has an MD on National Staff. The problem is every state has different requirements and allowances for EMT's. In some states, it further broken down into regions or counties having varied requirements. This makes it virtually impossible for CAP to have a nationwide EMS program. This discussion has taken place many times on CAPTalk, so there is no need to rehash it again here.

Putting a man on the moon took a HUGE amount of resources that CAP does not have.

[NC Hokie]

Putting a man on the moon took a HUGE amount of resources that CAP does not have.

You're right, but more than that it took the WILL to make it happen. The question is does CAP have the will to embrace the GSAR role and all it entails (training, credentialing, etc.)?

[tsrup]

I think CAP's capabilities for GSAR are now outdated.  We have been replaced by technology, and lets face it, the tech does a better job.  I'm sure we all want to go back in time to the hay days where CAP were SAR studs, bearing the weather and giving their all to find a lost aircraft.  But we don't need that anymore, and this is a good thing.  With GPS the time it takes to find an aircraft is reduced and in the end this may be a bad thing for CAP, but this is a good thing for the end user (the crashed pilot).

Instead of complaining about how much we don't get used for GSAR anymore, let's start working with our communities and taking this as an opportunity to broaden our horizons.  Maybe SAREXs don't need to be exclusively ELT searches anymore.  Maybe we need to start enhancing our training for our Disaster Relief missions or Missing Person searches.  These are the new face of CAP ground teams.  The sooner we embrace that the better.   

-Oh and the idea about individual augments for Air/Ground work was a genius idea, help meld our very capable air resources with the people who actually do do the ropework or are EMT's

[arajca]

Instead of complaining about how much we don't get used for GSAR anymore, let's start working with our communities and taking this as an opportunity to broaden our horizons.  Maybe SAREXs don't need to be exclusively ELT searches anymore.  Maybe we need to start enhancing our training for our Disaster Relief missions or Missing Person searches.  These are the new face of CAP ground teams.  The sooner we embrace that the better. 

IIRC, after COWG's SAREval last year, the AF said they wanted only about 20% of the sorties to be SAR...

Unfortunately, most of the ground leaders can't see the ES encompasses more than SAR. anymore than many pilots can't see that there is a non-flying role for CAP.

Head, Wall. Wall, Head. Play Nice.

[RADIOMAN015]

I don't think CAP really sees this as a mission growth area in its' current form.  There seems to be more emphasis on training with Red Cross on disaster assessment, and also CERT training/membership locally.

There are some very dedicated & knowledgeable volunteers in my wing who do there very best to train (primarily) cadets, with some senior member participation.   I personally think it is a lot of (good)training but at least in our wing, unlikely to result in any call out for the typical missions listed in the current SQRT -- So I don't want to spend all that time in training .    HOWEVER, from a radio communications standpoint, any time an aircraft is flying on a mission there's a need for radio communications support

Some wings are also looking for so called "forward air controllers" that will be radio operators & mission management personnel that will deploy into an area to coordinate CAP aerial response for a local community or county/counties area. 

I think it is easier to manage an air operations versus a ground operations, when you take everything into consideration.   It looks more high tech also when CAP aircraft are flying around with cameras, etc.
RM   

[RiverAux]

We have been replaced by technology, and lets face it, the tech does a better job. 

Just what technology has replaced ground sar teams in looking for lost persons?  I'd like to buy that gadget rather than walking through the woods and picking up ticks.

[isuhawkeye]

Some wings are also looking for so called "forward air controllers" that will be radio operators & mission management personnel that will deploy into an area to coordinate CAP aerial response for a local community or county/counties area. 

Isnt that an air branch director operating within the incident command system at the scene of the incident?

[tsrup]

We have been replaced by technology, and lets face it, the tech does a better job. 

Just what technology has replaced ground sar teams in looking for lost persons?  I'd like to buy that gadget rather than walking through the woods and picking up ticks.

Conceded, "replaced" was a poor choice of words. 

But you can bet that personal GPS locaters and new ELT technology takes a lot of the work out of what we used to do.

Who needs a gigantic search party when a person can be tracked by their cell phone or personal locator device. 

Do we still need to teach fundamental GSAR? Yes, 
Do we still need to learn and become proficient in GSAR? Absolutely
Should we complain that we are not being used like we used to? Not any more than we should cry that we no longer bomb u-boats. 

[RiverAux]

Hmm, yes its a good thing those 3 year olds and seniors that have wandered away from their homes all have those.

[vmstan]

And... batteries die.

[Eclipse]

But you can bet that personal GPS locaters and new ELT technology takes a lot of the work out of what we used to do.

Who needs a gigantic search party when a person can be tracked by their cell phone or personal locator device. 

If anything its added to our workload, at least in my wing.

People don't register their PLBs, but they like to play with them, and anytime we have an ELT these days it's automatically an aircraft plus at least two teams.  We've been at least as busy if not more so this year then "normal".

We've also had a number of missing persons and are watching the water as the floods start early this year.
Evolving missions?  Yes. Less? No.

As cash-strapped as most states are, if you not working, its either because of some law or policy that your state has that keeps you out of the game, regardless, or your people are talking to the right people.

[npfd505]

Dear RiverAux,

It is true that CAP should put more emphisis on our Ground Operations role.  How to accomplish this mission is tricky at best.  I live in a Wing were by state law the local sheriff has jurisdiction over searches.  Since we are in a time of fiscal stress, local law enforcement agencies (i.e. the sheriff) have been doing everything possible to justify costs.  They have been holding on tight to most searches since they can have "face time" in front of the ever present media.  The costs associated with Sheriff Rescue teams are much higher than CAP.  We (CAWG) should be working closely with the Sheriff so they can reap the financial benefit of using CAP ground teams.  Employing a volunteer unit to conduct searches can be fiscaly prudent for the local government.  Bottom line, we need to inform the folks that look over the politicians shoulders and show that we're cheap, we are trained, times are tough...use CAP to save $$$

[Rotorhead]

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.

If you want to be a first responder, you need to join one of the agencies in your area that is so designated.

CAP is not, and it has nothing to do with "being on the ball." We never have been first responders.

It is not our job. It is not how the organization is designed.

[Rotorhead]

Putting a man on the moon took a HUGE amount of resources that CAP does not have.

You're right, but more than that it took the WILL to make it happen. The question is does CAP have the will to embrace the GSAR role and all it entails (training, credentialing, etc.)?

We have a tough time getting people to take the ISC courses online as it is.

I don't see how we're going to get people to get more advanced certifications.

[RiverAux]

Dear RiverAux,

It is true that CAP should put more emphisis on our Ground Operations role.  How to accomplish this mission is tricky at best.  I live in a Wing were by state law the local sheriff has jurisdiction over searches.  Since we are in a time of fiscal stress, local law enforcement agencies (i.e. the sheriff) have been doing everything possible to justify costs.  They have been holding on tight to most searches since they can have "face time" in front of the ever present media.  The costs associated with Sheriff Rescue teams are much higher than CAP.  We (CAWG) should be working closely with the Sheriff so they can reap the financial benefit of using CAP ground teams.  Employing a volunteer unit to conduct searches can be fiscaly prudent for the local government.  Bottom line, we need to inform the folks that look over the politicians shoulders and show that we're cheap, we are trained, times are tough...use CAP to save $$$

I think you've described part of the problem very well in that any public agency is going to want to use its own resources first whenever possible so as to continue to justify their existence.  Thats just the nature of the beast.  However, in California where the sheriff's departments seem to be much more likely to have their own SAR teams, I'm not sure that focusing on the fact that CAP doesn't cost them anything is going to make a big difference.  They're not going to dump their SAR teams for CAP, nor should they.  I think there is enough work for everybody. 

In the case where you're "competing" for mission participation with a local SAR team, you've got to be able to show that you're good at what you're proposing to do.  We can't beat the local SAR teams on overall capability because of the limitations we've placed on ourselves concerning high-angle rescue and medical care.  So, we've got to be at least as good at them at what we can do - ground search in anything from urban areas to moderate mountain terrain.

Assuming our local teams can do this, which I think is certainly possible, then its all about developing relationships with the folks who are running the missions. 

But, I was really focusing on some of the "atmospherics" within CAP that holds us back in general in this area. 

[wuzafuzz]

Putting a man on the moon took a HUGE amount of resources that CAP does not have.

You're right, but more than that it took the WILL to make it happen. The question is does CAP have the will to embrace the GSAR role and all it entails (training, credentialing, etc.)?

We have a tough time getting people to take the ISC courses online as it is.

I don't see how we're going to get people to get more advanced certifications.

In my experience, the folks that really contribute to ES have had little heartburn about completing NIMS/ICS, as well as pursuing other training.  Of course that training needs to be reasonable for our expected missions.  Those missions vary by area, it might be ground SAR, it might be CERT, it might be helping ARC or SA.  Whatever it is, when we do show up we better be on the ball.  All that means is we are appropriately trained for our role and provide a professional showing.

People I know who are active in CAP ground teams and "pro" SAR see some value in CAP ground teams.  My squadron alone has four GTM/GTL's who are also on the local sheriff's SAR team.  They are great trainers; we sometimes do joint training and even joint missions with the "pro" team.  No one is pretending our ground teams intend to scale Everest, manage high angle rescues, or field CAP paramedics.  However, we do have our own niches where we bring value to the table. 

Relationships with other SAR teams vary, as do state and local laws affecting CAP GT's.  Although CAP is essentially locked out of ground SAR in some places, some of us are lucky enough to be located where our contributions are valued.

[wuzafuzz]

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

As for with we could do at a national level, isuhawkeye nailed it with bullet points 3 and 4.  Why doesn't CAP simply adopt a national standard that is equivalent to our current SQTR's.  Might require a little tweaking.  The most significant real hurdle might be whatever testing is required to earn that cert.  Our current mindset that testing occurs on meeting nights might have to change a little.

[RiverAux]

As for with we could do at a national level, isuhawkeye nailed it with bullet points 3 and 4.  Why doesn't CAP simply adopt a national standard that is equivalent to our current SQTR's.  Might require a little tweaking.  The most significant real hurdle might be whatever testing is required to earn that cert.  Our current mindset that testing occurs on meeting nights might have to change a little.

Okay, I'll say it again -- NASAR is NOT THE NATIONAL STANDARD.  The closest thing out there to a national standard (which is set by the group sarkdak mentioned) is not actually required by anyone and no one at the local levels that run GSAR is ever going to have heard of it. 

NASAR just has a name which makes it seem like they are the national standard, when in fact CAP is the single largest GSAR organization in the country our standards are every bit as legit as theres.

Nevertheless, there is no evidence that our SQTRs have anything to do with the lack of recognition of the importance of GSAR within CAP, which is the point of this thread. 

[wuzafuzz]

As for with we could do at a national level, isuhawkeye nailed it with bullet points 3 and 4.  Why doesn't CAP simply adopt a national standard that is equivalent to our current SQTR's.  Might require a little tweaking.  The most significant real hurdle might be whatever testing is required to earn that cert.  Our current mindset that testing occurs on meeting nights might have to change a little.

Okay, I'll say it again -- NASAR is NOT THE NATIONAL STANDARD.  The closest thing out there to a national standard (which is set by the group sarkdak mentioned) is not actually required by anyone and no one at the local levels that run GSAR is ever going to have heard of it.

Is NASAR used by most SAR groups?  If so, then it is a defacto standard.  Notice I said "A", not "THE."  I've worked in careers where there is no official gov't mandated standard, but anyone who didn't possess the defacto standard wasn't competitive for promotions and was in danger from defense lawyers when testifying.  So whether or not NASAR or some other standard is absolutely required at a national level, we may benefit by going with the flow.

[RiverAux]

As CAP is the single largest GSAR organization in the country, perhaps they need to be going with our flow? 

Again, this is irrelevant to the purpose of this thread. 

[wuzafuzz]

As for with we could do at a national level, isuhawkeye nailed it with bullet points 3 and 4.  Why doesn't CAP simply adopt a national standard that is equivalent to our current SQTR's.  Might require a little tweaking.  The most significant real hurdle might be whatever testing is required to earn that cert.  Our current mindset that testing occurs on meeting nights might have to change a little.

Okay, I'll say it again -- NASAR is NOT THE NATIONAL STANDARD.  The closest thing out there to a national standard (which is set by the group sarkdak mentioned) is not actually required by anyone and no one at the local levels that run GSAR is ever going to have heard of it. 

NASAR just has a name which makes it seem like they are the national standard, when in fact CAP is the single largest GSAR organization in the country our standards are every bit as legit as theres.

Nevertheless, there is no evidence that our SQTRs have anything to do with the lack of recognition of the importance of GSAR within CAP, which is the point of this thread.

I responded before you edited, so here goes:
Regarding the perceived importance of GSAR within CAP, I'll suggest that if we train and market ourselves locally using a standard other SAR teams are familiar with, we will get more "air time."  National might notice that success and pay more attention to GSAR and what works.  Granted, that's only a chance.  IMHO national is more likely to pay attention to expanding other ground missions in the DR arena. 

[RiverAux]

If we're talking with other SAR teams that use them or that tiny percentage of sheriffs who might know what they are, I don't have any problem with CAP members talking about how our qualifications equate to various NASAR levels if that helps get the point across that our teams are trained. 

But, as we're talking about getting GSAR some attention within CAP, I don't see that as a winner either.  If CAP had some sort of real process for reviewing missions and their results it might quickly become apparent that that lost person searches and ground SAR are much more important than they are given credit. 

But, think about this...Have you ever seen a breakdown of the sorts of missions responsible for CAP saves?  Seen national pay any attention to anything other than aircraft flight time?  Any attention to how many people are actually involved in ground SAR sorties?  If national cared about any of that stuff they probably would have already realized that GSAR is increasing in importance to CAP while air SAR is on the decline.   

WWhile national isn't getting the picture, I think things may be changing a bit in my wing.  We haven't had a real air search in several years and the only real SAR missions we've had are on lost person searches where we've had a lot more ground than air sorties.  They've started to give a little more attention to our ground folks as a result, though we still aren't seeing any money for that sort of training -- its all being done locally on unfunded missions for the most part. 

[NavLT]

I agree with RiverAux when he points out that national does not seem to even want to look at hard #s for GSAR vs Air.

I recently had a breif spar about SAREX training with the DO where he asked me to make sure I was training people on searching for the 406Mhz with no 121.5 carrier because they were seeing more of those lately than ELT hunts.  I pointed out that with No DF gear for 406Mhz readily availible that meant sending Ground Teams to the GEO Cords of the fix (hopefully the 10M with GPS but no holding my breath).  But that we keep practicing digital photography for Ground sorties and no hasty or circle searches, no clue awareness, no containment.

The last 2 SAREXs scheduled in my wing were canceled do to poor flying weather....Because planes never crash in marginal to poor weather.   

With the entire conversion to WMIRS the approval and tracking of these missions is very very very transparent to the Region commander and the Liason Officers.  But given the Air Centric view I doubt they even bat an eye at months of no training because it was over cast or rainy. 

Historically (a sad truth) is that only when it hurts do people change course. Will CAP ever give GSAR serious attention? When a very public search makes it painful not to or a lawsuit reguarding us not meeting our advertised capabilities hits home (but not so much they just decide to stop doing it).

Proactive organizations change before it gets ugly or costs a life but I don't see that kind of energy at national.  They seem much more concerned about epaulet color or confirming fake rank.

V/R
Nav LT

[arajca]

A bright spot in an otherwise dismal topic...

I've been asked to help plan ground sorites for the upcoming AF Guided Training Exercise in COWG. The basic idea, which everyone I've discussed it with LOVES, is establishing a 'remote' ground operations base in the mountains and running a few ground teams on varied terrain, with a broad spectrum of communications capabilities. The State Director, a VERY experienced and respected IC, and several other Operations folks are supportive of this idea because they realize we need more ground team training and it needs to be incorporated from the start and not tacked on when ground teams show up at an exercise.

[RiverAux]

That is very good news as the lack of comprehension about GSAR issues by CAP-USAF staff is another major national level problem.  Most of them can wrap their head around the air SAR stuff and certainly understand running a mission staff, but need help on GSAR.  I've mentioned before about some of the ridiculously easy scenarios they've presented at SAREVALS in my wing because they just don't know any better.  I think the solution to that is to have a pool of very qualified CAP GSAR personnel that serve as a regional resource (as an extra duty, not to be assigned to Region) to help CAP-USAF plan GSAR scenarios at SAREVALs. 

[Jerry Jacobs]

I pointed out that with No DF gear for 406Mhz readily availible that meant sending Ground Teams to the GEO Cords of the fix

I've been working on a new technique with working a 406 mHz signal.  I just recently found out one of my radios has the capability to listen into them.  So the next time I go on an ELT hunt I'm going to monitor 406 if we have confirmed 406 SARSAT hit.  But with the half second data burst it will be near impossible to DF it without ideal conditions and Doppler equipment.

[heliodoc]

^^^^

Great suggestion there, RiverAux

Think the leadership could ever dream up the word regional resource, regional training centers, or the like?

It really isn't that hard to do this stuff locally.  But the taskbook sure leaves alot to be desired.  So making up scenarios at the squadron level isn't that hard and yes I have seen some easy ones, too.

Lack of GSAR by CAP-USAF?   More like CAP.... USAF has the highly skilled PJ's and are pretty revered from the past......and doing great work now.

Square the problem on the "new corporate leadership" at CAP.  There is where ALLL the HELP and education needs direction.

It's easy to come out with a task book with no real support behind leaving it up the squadrons to dream up whatever they need.  So apparently it is up to individual squadrons, because there is really NO training STANDARDIZED training support in tow from NHQ, so in CAP you get what you get, Wing by Wing.....  CAP in its zeal, should have all sorts of scenarios based training packets distributed to each Wing...if not , too bad, whatever the individual Wing or squadron dreams up should be good enough then, huh?  ' Cuz there is NO National training packet or standardized training support for GSAR...just a MART ....truly a sad state of affairs....

With that kind of training support... I feel my Infantry skills received in the RM for map and compass, map reading, and land nav ought NOT be questioned...nor should any other member who is signing of SQTR's with those backgrounds.  Too often in CAP the question appeared..."where did you get that info?"  I still carry my Army FM's with me so there is NO question who is the SME SET in CAP.  None of this task book training is that difficult...but there are those folks in CAP, pilots included, that think it's a waste of time or supplement "last minute training" to fill time.

Good on arajca for his work at COWG

[NavLT]

Jerry Jacobs you should start a topic on 406 Mhz and tell us about your radio and how it works out! Awsome.

RiverAux has a very valid point about having somebody who does GSAR at the right levels of staffing.  When I attended Middle East Region SAR College, I found they had a LtCol on Region staff as an additional duty who was the Ground SAR guy.  They acutally did some of the resource stuff you suggested but they are rare recognizing the need, finding a good guy to fill the role and working with the Evals to generate real training and real evals.

I find that many of the evaluations get the laundry list of known weaknesses (IE you need to flex CISM, Flight Line, and Section cheifs because the roles are not getting used enoug).  So they write a scenario that has a big componenet of those items roled in but they don't connect it to the reason they fail in the first place.  They don't actively train and use them locally all the time.  If you never do flight line functions because the local FBO does it, then when you pull together 8 CAP A/C for a major search who has the skills?  I recently had a lot of mirth at the Plans Section cheif role being enforced from wing for a SAREX, they mandated the role, the only people qualified were the old school ICs (by default I might add) who dont generally do Plans to begin with.  Then they had a sarex that lasted 5-6 hours which is enough time to build the IAP and maybe launch a sortie or two but leaves all the functionality of multi shift and Planning the next Op period to dust.  The PSC trainee was trying to do what ICS 300 did a fair job of teaching but the IC/PSC was firmly in I can do all these functions myself. 

Having done ICS in Fire and EMS at some larger incidents the whole image of a new style trainee and an old style trainer was like watching an old Candid Camera episode wondering when allan funt was going to jump out.

[sardak]

I've been working on a new technique with working a 406 mHz signal.

Jerry Jacobs you should start a topic on 406 Mhz and tell us about your radio and how it works out! Awsome.

Good idea, these thoughts get lost when posted in unrelated threads like this one. He could start a new discussion or add it to one of these threads that discuss 406 DF.
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=9609.0
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=4246.0
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=9103.0
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=9160.0
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=8692.0

Mike

[Short Field]

the whole image of a new style trainee and an old style trainer was like watching an old Candid Camera episode wondering when allan funt was going to jump out.

You are forgetting that the whole purpose of a SAREX is to launch the first sorties as fast as possible and then go to breakfast.  This is followed by getting the correct hobbs and tach times, fuel slips, and then lunch.  As soon as lunch is over, the SAREX is officially over - with the exception of the pesky ground team that is still slowly (less than 115 Kt per hour) making its way back to town.  Who needs a planning staff?

[lordmonar]

Or vans 

[billford1]

If we consider how well we are networked with official Emergency Response organizations how well they know us matters a lot. If we tell them we'll show up we have to be able to guarantee that we'll really show up with so many people. The fitness of the GT Members matters a lot but so does our ability to get them there. We don't have helicopters or many off road vehicles. What we do have are vans that are limited for where they can go. There aren't many 4WD vehicles available. If we show up and there's a long walk involved we have to consider who we can call on who can get to the injured persons quick enough.  I really hope that someday CAP stops buying the big rear wheel drive vans that are limited to paved roads without much mud or snow. With their well known roll over risk when loaded with people I would invite CAP get rid of them.  As for GSAR the video I saw that showcased the Colorado GSAR school impressed me a lot. I like it when I can get qualified Cadets who want to come along. They're very able but I think about keeping tabs on them and having enough situational awareness to make sure they're not encountering a dangerous situation like hazardous terrain, isolation or criminal activity that they could encounter by chance. Motivated qualified Cadets are great to bring along when we can get them. I just want to make darn sure that they're well tuned in with the GTL who should be risk conscious.

[RiverAux]

Of all the reasons CAP's GSAR capabilities are underutilized, vehicles are probably about the least important.  You can drive WAY into the depths of some of the most isolated parts of the US in our vans.  Can you get everywhere?  Of course not, but I'd say that we can probably get to almost anywhere a GSAR command post is likely to be set up anywhere in the US in dry weather. 

My WAG on this would be that a very, very, tiny percentage of GSAR cases require any 4WD. 

So, getting new vehicles for GSAR is not on my list of national level priorities. 

Besides, I'd be willing to wager that if there are parts of the country where 4WD is absolutely essential, CAP members are likely to own them as POVs and could use their vehicles if absolutely necessary for a mission in that situation. 

[Short Field]

If we consider how well we are networked with official Emergency Response organizations how well they know us matters a lot. If we tell them we'll show up we have to be able to guarantee that we'll really show up with so many people.

That is the major issue I see with GSAR.  I know I do not have the capability to guarantee I can even field a five person ground team.  I can launch at least 80% of the wing's aircraft on a given weekend for a search but I never know if I can round up enough people who are ground team qualified.    The last time we tried it, we got all of five people to respond.   

[SARDOC]

Do we still need to teach fundamental GSAR? Yes, 
Do we still need to learn and become proficient in GSAR? Absolutely
Should we complain that we are not being used like we used to? Not any more than we should cry that we no longer bomb u-boats.

Okay..Now that's funny

[lordmonar]

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.

Are we?

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.

I agree....but how to affect that change?

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.

NOPE!  The PSC does the planning.  The GBD sorties, tracks and supervises the TACTICAL planning that can only be done by the GTL.   As a GTL I don't want the GBD dictating anything to me...just give me the task.  The PSC is the one generating the task and determining what area needs to be searched.  More training at the PSC and the GTL level are of course both warrented.  But of all the ES specialties the GBD is one of the few that is a square peg in the square hole.  Don't screw with it.

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

Agreed...what standard?

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.

Half and half on this.....assuming that we plan to bring our GT training in line with NASAR standards.....would that mean we would promote from within?  What NASAR standard would go with what rank?

[lordmonar]

Of all the reasons CAP's GSAR capabilities are underutilized, vehicles are probably about the least important.  You can drive WAY into the depths of some of the most isolated parts of the US in our vans.  Can you get everywhere?  Of course not, but I'd say that we can probably get to almost anywhere a GSAR command post is likely to be set up anywhere in the US in dry weather. 

My WAG on this would be that a very, very, tiny percentage of GSAR cases require any 4WD. 

So, getting new vehicles for GSAR is not on my list of national level priorities. 

Besides, I'd be willing to wager that if there are parts of the country where 4WD is absolutely essential, CAP members are likely to own them as POVs and could use their vehicles if absolutely necessary for a mission in that situation.

When your vans get pulled to support RSC instead of GSAR training it is a problem.

[arajca]

Of all the reasons CAP's GSAR capabilities are underutilized, vehicles are probably about the least important.  You can drive WAY into the depths of some of the most isolated parts of the US in our vans.  Can you get everywhere?  Of course not, but I'd say that we can probably get to almost anywhere a GSAR command post is likely to be set up anywhere in the US in dry weather. 

My WAG on this would be that a very, very, tiny percentage of GSAR cases require any 4WD. 

So, getting new vehicles for GSAR is not on my list of national level priorities. 

Besides, I'd be willing to wager that if there are parts of the country where 4WD is absolutely essential, CAP members are likely to own them as POVs and could use their vehicles if absolutely necessary for a mission in that situation.

When your vans get pulled to support RSC instead of GSAR training it is a problem.

How about when all the wing vans get pulled to support national and regional activities for most of the summer?

[heliodoc]

^^^^ X2

AHHHH Yes, the old addage...."corporate property" comes to mind on alll that corporate capital equipment!!!!

[RiverAux]

We're the largest ground SAR organization in the country and we should make that known.

Are we?

I haven't been able to find a ground SAR team with 4,000-5,000 members.  NASAR membership may be in that range, but they are not an operational organization so I don't count them. 

[Jerry Jacobs]

We're the largest ground SAR organization in the country and we should make that known.

Are we?

I haven't been able to find a ground SAR team with 4,000-5,000 members.  NASAR membership may be in that range, but they are not an operational organization so I don't count them.

The National Association for Search and Rescue is composed of 132 instructors, 247 evaluators, 84 lead evaluators, and 10,533 members

http://www.nasar.org/nasar/downloads/Chapter_1_-_NASAR_Description.pdf

[heliodoc]

NASAR, albeit, small has plenty of information and training on SAR that many of us in CAP do not realize who may be tapping THEM for SAR expertise before us.

So what if NASAR is small?  They obviously have a dedicated and training program with just as many "real" evaluations or MORE than CAP does for training and curriculum evaluation.

Not counting them?  How do CAP members KNOW they do not work as an operational organization?  They are not operational 'cuz they are not flashing around with toys and equipment provide by Uncle Sugar and the USAF, running around with BDU's and chest full of bling?

Next thing you know, CAP will say is they are more operational than CERT and other volunteer organizations..,.

CAP has its place.  NASAR, with its small membership, has a definite place in the whole SAR picture.  Some of THEIR training is just as "hard core" as CAP's, but it really looks like NASAR has its stuff together with the various curriculum / class loads out there and probably just as stand up and effective as CAP 's old favorite.....NESA.

CAP members do not "have to count NASAR as operational."  But some statements by CAP members here on CAPTalk.....probably do not know all the facts on other organizations true SAR capabilities just 'cuz they are not floating around with a uniform and 39-1 in their hand, rendering them nearly useless in some CAPTalk arenas

[arajca]

NASAR is NOT an operational organization. Don't believe me, how about this little piece of information:

The National Association for Search and Rescue, Inc., (NASAR) is a not-for-profit membership association dedicated to advancing professional, literary, and scientific knowledge in fields related to search and rescue. NASAR is comprised of thousands of paid and non-paid professionals interested in all aspects of search and rescue - the humanitarian cause of saving lives - throughout the United States and around the world. "...that others may live."

Response to persons in distress has long been an honorable, charitable tradition. The professionals in search and rescue have carried on this tradition of helping others by dedicating time, information, skills, equipment and funding to the relief of suffering. We are actively working toward the development of improved coordination and communications among federal, state, local, and volunteer groups. Our primary goal is to develop and provide professional credentialing products and services for your search and rescue community.

So, you can't count them as as SAR agency.

[heliodoc]

OK

I will admit my ignorance and will stand corrected...which many on CAPTalk readily will not admit when they are wrong

So why then is CAP so bent against NASAR and its credentialing system anyway...obviously CAP thinks its "SAR" program is far superior to NASAR's.

CAP vs NASAR credentialing process...seems to me that CAP is CAP specific whereas NASAR is a professional service to outside SAR community
CAN CAP claim that? 

I do not see CAP in the credentialing biz OTHER than CAP itself.

Did not say  I did not believe anyone here.....but there are CAPTalkers here who get real defensive about their CAP SAR only centric world as if the  entire SAR and EM community is knockin at CAP's door for CAP's services.

Maybe if there was a TRUE CAP STANDARDIZED training system in ALL 52 Wings...not PAWG, NESA, NBB etc etc etc etc etc alll CAP...then MAYBE CAP would not have its 68 going 69 yr old identity crisis it has begging for missions and claiming we are cheaper....somebody still pays directly or indirectly no matter how CAP sells itself as nationally  credentialed SAR organization

I will stand corrected as NASAR as not being a SAR agency.  But CAP still does not carry a SQTR nor true DR  curriculum...prove that CAPTalkers

[arajca]

I will stand corrected as NASAR as not being a SAR agency.  But CAP still does not carry a SQTR nor true DR  curriculum...prove that CAPTalkers

No argument here.

[RiverAux]

Well, I agree that we don't have a ground based disaster response program, but we're talking about GSAR here.

[lordmonar]

Has anyone actually compared NASAR SARTECH ratings with our GTM 3-1 rating?

From what little I can see from their web site....and not wanting to spend $50+ for their training materials....I think that we are pretty close to being there.

NASAR is a creditialing agency.  They just produce a standard, have some tests and hold courses.

Just like CAP crediantials they only mean as much as an agency will accept.

Anyone who is in the teaching biz can tell you national creditials don't mean a thing if the local school district does not accept them.

Should CAP just adopt NASAR creditials as our own?  Sure.....why not?  Except for the cost.  NASAR wants you to pay $70 just to take their SARTECH III test.  All the other levels require attendance to their courses.

Sure we can get CAP guys to be instructors so we can hold course when we want to...but they are still going to want $70 for each test.

So to get some people trained to SARTECH I is at least $210  not counting book and CAP people providing the training for free.

Ground team leaders is another $70.

Everytime we talk about making changes that involve money.......we are setting ourselves up for failure.

The question is not about crediantials....so much as two points  1) is our training covering providing the right skill sets our customers want? 2) is our training being audited, standardised and controlled in a way that establishes a an accrediation that our customers expect.

For qeustion 1 I think CAP is on target or very close.....we could use more DR or maybe another specialty (I discussesed this before in another thread)

On question 2 is where I think we are failing.  NESA, HMRS, are pretty good.  But out in the field there is almost no Quality Control.

I would like to see NESA change from an primary instruction facilty to a "top gun"/Stand Eval/Instructor school.  A place where GTLs and GTM1s can go to put some polish on their skills, really work with some of the tasks that they can only read about at their local units (working with canines, helo operations, etc) and a very big helping of how to put on a training course, and how to evaluate and instruct.  NESA should be producing instructors who will teach the rest of us.

[heliodoc]

Sure it costs some dough for the NASAR for its tests and books

Probably not much than spending all that dough on new equipment advertised here at CAPTalk

Agreed on the credentialing.  CAP's credentialing may appear "free" but if one is traveling to NESA or others  whats that 150.00 for the course?

Another 100.00 to 300.00 or more ,depending on mode of travel.

Just like college or getting the different flying ratings....it costs something

When everyone in the SAR and EM world ID's CAP as the "Gold Standard of SAR Training"    then that word free training will definitely something to crow about.  But until then, spending money on gear and encampments is no cheaper than a $70 test!!

[lordmonar]

Yes...but one does not HAVE to go to NESA to get GTM1 qualified.

Requiring NASAR credentials would ADD costs on top off the costs we already have to train and maintain ground teams.

Unless our customers start demanding that we have them I would not push it beyond encouragement.

I would think that maybe we give GTM credit for SARTECH ratings....maybe advance promotions to attract SARTECH rated people.

As I said I am not against NASAR...but we do have to figure the costs of adopting their credentials.

[heliodoc]

MAYBE NASAR and CAP could get together, iron all the details out, sign an MOA / MOU with National providing the lawyers do not get wrapped around another axle for them to ball up what could be an excellent relationship.

I am sure this has been talked about before....maybe not.

Just think of allll the possibilities..... inter organizational goodwill and education, credentialing at a (possible) reduced price if CAP would return some flyin favors for their missions. 

Costs?  Sure there are.  Whether or not FEMA ever establishes standards in the futurebased on threads here before, you don't think that might cost something?

I guess I'd be barkin up the wrong tree...'cuz CAP would now be entering what would be known as First Responder or least getting the framework for that purpose

Or CAP could stay the same.......it's same 'ol 68 yrs old self WISHING and BEGGING for more missions 'cuz we are FREEEEEEE!

These online tests and CAP online format...what is that costing the organization per year on  "R&D" and delivery?  Huh?

Probably no good answers to solve all the CAP worlds problems

[RiverAux]

There have been quite a few discussions here about comparisons between CAP and NASAR ratings. 

[sardak]

^^^Like this one? Training to NASAR Standards http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=9737.0

MAYBE NASAR and CAP could get together, iron all the details out, sign an MOA / MOU with National providing the lawyers do not get wrapped around another axle for them to ball up what could be an excellent relationship.

I am sure this has been talked about before....maybe not.

NASAR and CAP signed an agreement in 2003.
Civil Air Patrol and NASAR Inc. agree to develop and implement plans for cooperation between NASAR and CAP in the promotion of education and training of emergency services personnel – specifically professional level search and rescue specialists.

Then a list of eight warm and fuzzy things the two organizations could do for each other.

To facilitate the implementation of this agreement, NASAR and CAP commit to the formation of a joint working group appointed by the NASAR Executive Director and CAP Executive Director. The working group will meet as needed but not less than annually. The working group is tasked with the responsibility of program development, review, evaluation and modification, as appropriate to achieve mutual goals.

This agreement becomes effective on the date of the last signature below and continues for 5 years. At the end of 5 years the parties will consider the development of a new agreement.

What do you suppose was considered at the end of five years, which was May, 2008?

Mike

[RiverAux]

Mike, thanks for another example of CAP NHQ not taking GSAR seriously.  I certainly am not aware of anything coming of the first agreement though I suppose we can't automatically assume that the lack of any results is CAP's fault. 

[heliodoc]

Thanks sardak

More warm and fuzziness on how CAP could benefit NASAR and noth the other way around.......

Is there still a working group in CAP   I am sure there is at NASAR, but I would bet CAP left a bad taste in NASAR's mouth or FAILED to attend the working group meetings...is that not in the realm of reality??

I came back to CAP in 2005 and was not aware of the "MOU" of 2003

But apparently, for lack of better terms, CAP terms or CAP NHQ terms, the standard LACK of attention to detail and a CAP centric belief STILL prevails after all those "meetings and glad handing" that CAP is well known for and then CAP wondering WHHHHY we do not get called.

Its called COMMUNICATIONS between agencies...a new found skill CAP, in all aspects, needs a good solid education or a good swift kickin in the 4th point of contact.

CAP could show MORE goodwill than it claims to have done in the WHOLE emergency management field.  I probably have made more contact with EM's this week than most CAP Wing do in a lifetime....

[billford1]

Of all the reasons CAP's GSAR capabilities are underutilized, vehicles are probably about the least important.  You can drive WAY into the depths of some of the most isolated parts of the US in our vans.  Can you get everywhere?  Of course not, but I'd say that we can probably get to almost anywhere a GSAR command post is likely to be set up anywhere in the US in dry weather. 

My WAG on this would be that a very, very, tiny percentage of GSAR cases require any 4WD. 

So, getting new vehicles for GSAR is not on my list of national level priorities. 

Besides, I'd be willing to wager that if there are parts of the country where 4WD is absolutely essential, CAP members are likely to own them as POVs and could use their vehicles if absolutely necessary for a mission in that situation.

When your vans get pulled to support RSC instead of GSAR training it is a problem.

How about when all the wing vans get pulled to support national and regional activities for most of the summer?

How about when your on a mission and you have to call a tow truck because you're stuck in the mud or snow? When there has been flooding or a lot of snow you have to be more aware of what roads are passable. With a 6 passenger 4WD Ford pickup or even an AWD Minivan there's an advantage. Many people I know won't use their truck or SUV on a mission.

[sardak]

Maybe people do pay attention to issues highlighted on CAP Talk.

At last week's State SAR Coordinators Council meeting held in conjunction with the NASAR annual conference, the president of NASAR, Dan Hourihan, met with John Desmarais of CAP NHQ. The CAP/NASAR agreement will be renewed. Both sides agreed that nothing ever came of the original agreement because neither organization pursued it. The leadership and corporate philosophy of both organizations is different now than in 2003, so it's expected (hoped?) that there will be tangible results from the new agreement. The NASAR Board of Directors agreed to go forward with a new agreement. Now we wait for CAP.

There is also work in progress to develop a "crosswalk" from CAP GTM ratings to NASAR SARTECH ratings. This doesn't mean CAP ground team members will just get SARTECH certification. The certification tests will still have to be taken and passed, and won't be free. What this means is that gaps in CAP ground training will be filled to match SARTECH training. Expect to see new tasks.

Mike

[heliodoc]

Thanks for the update, Mike!

The wait from CAP will be the wait.  At least NASAR BoD has the moxie to g'ahead with a new agreement.

While the NASAR SARTECH ratings won't be free...at least it will be an option for those in CAP that want a little more than CAP creds to work with....never know when a NASAR cred will be looked at or into in the future......

Gotta give a large Bravo Zulu to Messrs Hourihan and Desmarais for meeting on getting agreements renewed!

[Smithsonia]

To follow up for this discussion here is the syllabus for the SARTECH II rating. As a CAP GTL, I don't know much about Handling Evidence and I am rusty on knots and ropes... but the rest is pretty straightforward. That said all training is good. Anything to help CAP, Local SAR, and our fellow man is worth the trouble:

SARTECH II Examination
The SARTECH II level of certification is the intermediate level for SAR personnel. This level is recommended for any person who functions on SAR missions as field searchers.  Persons who obtain this certification are to function within the limits of the certification described on our website at this link http://www.nasar.org/nasar/education.php?id=9.  In addition to the information provided on the website, the NASAR course that prepares one to challenge the SARTECH II is Fundamentals of Search and Rescue.  The newest edition of the Fundamentals of Search and Rescue textbook was released in 2005.  Previous editions of the textbook will not prepare one to challenge the SARTECH II certification.
There are no prerequisites required for a person to challenge the SARTECH II examination.  Certification history does indicate persons who have had formal SAR training and experience on SAR missions successfully pass the examinations more frequently than others do.

The SARTECH II examination consists of written exam and a practical exam.  The written exam includes one hundred and forty-five (145) questions covering the candidate's knowledge of search and rescue.  A passing grade is 70 or above.  Successfully passing the SARTECH II written test assures the candidate to be certified at the SARTECH III level whether the practical exam is passed or not.

Upon passing the written exam, the candidate is then required to successfully complete a six station practical exam.  Should the candidate not successfully complete all of the practical exam stations, only the stations that are failed need be repeated if this is done within one year of the original testing date.  Up to two failed stations may be repeated on the day of the original exam.  If necessary, the re-testing may be completed at any subsequent SARTECH II evaluation.  If the retesting is done within the one year of the original testing date, no additional payment to NASAR is required. However, a host organization may charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs of hosting the repeat examination.

The written exam includes questions from the following topics:

    * NIMS Incident Command System
    * Basic Survival
    * SAR Clothing
    * Improvising
    * Environmental Hazards and First Aid
    * SAR Ready Pack
    * Personal Equipment
    * Travel Skills
    * Land Navigation & Orienteering
    * SAR Resources
    * Search Philosophy
    * Search Tactics
    * Handling Evidence
    * Clue Consciousness
    * Search Operations
    * Tracking
    * Ropes & Rescue Equipment
    * Legal Aspects for the Searcher

The candidate's performance of SAR skills is evaluated at six practical exam stations involving:

    * Station #1: Land Navigation: Use of topographic maps and compass.  Candidates complete a course over terrain commonly encountered in the operations area in a specified time frame, not to exceed 600 meters.
    * Station #2: Tracking: Candidates identify and mark a footprint track left by the evaluator and follow the track to its end.
    * Station #3: 24-hour Pack: Candidates demonstrate the ability to possess and pack the required SAR equipment and supplies efficiently.
    * Station #4: Rope Skills: Candidates demonstrate the ability to tie four basic knots and a harness with supplied rope and webbing.
    * Station #5: Route Search: This station entails locating and labeling clues in a given area demonstrating the ability to detect 50% of the clues using a route search tactic.
    * Station #6: Area Search: This station entails locating and labeling clues in a given area demonstrating the ability to detect 50% of the clues using an area search tactic.

Certification Levels SARTECH III through SARTECH I/CREWLEADER are a series of written and practical examinations that test the levels of knowledge and practical skills of SAR personnel.  These examinations are based on the NASAR Certification Criteria for SARTECH.  The SARTECH Certification Criteria were formulated by the National Association for Search and Rescue (NASAR) and recognized by many states and agencies.  They have also been submitted for review to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and National Fire Protection Association for their consideration in their standards development.

The SARTECH program is an evaluation process not a learning process.  Candidates demonstrate basic SAR competency through written tests and practical skill demonstrations of search and rescue skills.  Upon successful completion of the requirements, a certificate will be issued to the person by NASAR.  This certificate does not constitute a license to practice the skills taught in a training program or to practice the knowledge and performance skills that have been evaluated.  The certificate does signify that the person holding the certificate has met the requirements of established certification criteria and/or performance skill on the date indicated on the certificate.

NASAR has developed three courses using the NASAR Certification Criteria for SARTECH.  These courses are Introduction to Search and Rescue, Fundamentals of Search and Rescue and Advanced Search and Rescue.  These courses are designed to teach the student the knowledge and skills necessary to pass the level of SARTECH certification that correspond to the course.  Completion of these or any other NASAR sponsored courses are not required for the candidate to challenge any certification examination. The candidates training may come from any available source the candidate chooses.  Candidates who successfully complete the evaluation process will receive a certificate and patch from NASAR signifying their certification level.  NASAR does not require a particular re-certification time period but leaves the decision to the organizations and agencies that utilize the SARTECH personnel.

Please click on the word EDUCATION on the home page for a list of Frequently Asked Questions which include the SARTECH II Certification Criteria and the Ready Pack List.

**The textbook that prepares one to challenge the SARTECH II is the Fundamentals of Search and Rescue.  The newest edition of the Fundamentals of Search and Rescue textbook was released in 2005.  Previous editions of the textbook will not prepare one to challenge the SARTECH II certification.