James Kim S&R -- What Can CAP Safely Advocate?

[sardak]

John - the Guard flew as a state asset at the request of one of the sheriffs involved. The final AAR gives names, dates, times, etc. of who talked to whom, and includes the tail numbers of the Guard helos. Again, it flew one or two helicopters on 5 of the 6 days of the search.

It was Oregon OEM who activated the Guard and would try to get CAP to fly. As stated, CAP never flew.

The MOU between Oregon and AFRCC on the Oregon OEM webpage at: http://www.oregon.gov/OMD/OEM/tech_resp/sar_docs/afrcc-mou.pdf

There aren't any MOUs between CAP and the State on that page.

Mike

[RiverAux]

There aren't any MOUs between CAP and the State on that page.

There may not be one posted on the internet, but every CAP wing is required to have their own separate MOU with the state regarding CAP operations. 

[NIN]

There aren't any MOUs between CAP and the State on that page.

There may not be one posted on the internet, but every CAP wing is required to have their own separate MOU with the state regarding CAP operations.

Even when the state is uninterested in executing an MOU with CAP?

It takes both parties to tango.

[RiverAux]

There aren't any MOUs between CAP and the State on that page.

There may not be one posted on the internet, but every CAP wing is required to have their own separate MOU with the state regarding CAP operations.

Even when the state is uninterested in executing an MOU with CAP?

It takes both parties to tango.

Well, there is a way to avoid getting dinged on your next CI if you don't have such an MOU.  Do you have an example? 

[Eclipse]

My state has no interest in the conversation, we have not had an MOU for a number of years.

[sardak]

We've turned down the wrong fork in the road with this discussion, but I agree. If a state doesn't want an MOU with CAP the two shouldn't be required to have one. However, CAPR 111-2 paragraph 3(a)(2) states (using some flawed logic):
It is presumed that every state has a recurring need for CAP services and support. Therefore, every CAP wing is required to maintain a current MOU with the state in which it operates. Each wing that does not have a current MOU with the state must submit a statement of reasons through its region commander to the CAP/CC with a copy to National Headquarters General Counsel (NHQ CAP/GC).

Here is a link to the MOUs and MOAs between states and AFRCC. These may or may not count as the "state MOU." Our most recent MOU (not posted here) was signed last year before the reg was published, but it's signed by CAP, state sheriffs association, state SAR association, state emergency management and AFRCC. We don't plan on creating another MOU.
https://1afnorth.region1.ang.af.mil/JPRC/State%20MOUMOA/Forms/AllItems.aspx

Mike

[Spaceman3750]

My state has no interest in the conversation, we have not had an MOU for a number of years.

Not even with the state EMA?

[bosshawk]

Interesting conversation, but almost totally out of touch with the original question.  Perhaps someone from Oregon can shed some "factual" light on the whole subject.

I do know that in Washington, CAP used to be  the last organization called in the event of a search.  That may have changed, but it was true a couple of years ago.  That said, WAWG is quite active in the CD world up there.

In CA, we get called on a fairly regular basis by CALEMA, with whom we have a pretty good relationship.