CAP Aircraft Searching for Steve Fossett

[heliodoc]

ICS doesn't differentiate between ciivilian or military operators

It is a system no matter who invented it whether or not it was developed by or in the days of Napoleon

Just a system BOTH military and civilians are using EVEN today's Guard CFRPE or whatever designator.

Doesn't matter who's bellerin' whether they are of the 1970's vintage or not

Again CAP is great at LPER missions, ELT detection and flying. 

But do not ask why "we don't get to play"

#1  WE are NOT first responders going into a hot zone we are disaster support personnel (or are desiring to be)  BUT we had better understand a "system" and how it works No matter with we are "militarized" or not

But as I understand it,CAP is a volunteer org with military ties, military customs and courtesies, SOME military structure, etc.   

BUT I personally undertand the term volunteer.  Let me tell you I hear alot of whining from 30 yrs Stan Eval types about how much CAP instructor time is worth and this and that.... those are the types I suggest get out and see the real world is and see how many baloney sandwiches the non CAP instructors have had to do it.

Some CAP members and alot of CAP pilots sure whine alot  I try to keep mine to a minimum.

[lordmonar]

John....

I don't think that is the problem at all. (at least here in Nevada)

The major problem is that we do not exercise with our counter parts enough.

Even if each and every agency at the part is 100% literate in the ICS system...once you bring them together there will be growing pains.

No one in Nevada is casting stones to anyone exclusively. CAP was part of the command and control problem....but it was not just us.

NVWG has changed a lot of how we do buisness based on the lessons learned during the Fosset Search.

I personally know several of the people who ran the mission base and flew missions and beleive me we have listened to the suggestions they have made following the search.

[BillB]

John.....But remember in the 60's CAP has more USAF support. That is more or less impossible due to Base closings, downsizing lack of airlift capability, and drpping the Wing level AD USAF-CAP LO's. The majority on this board are ES interested, where the only contat with CAP-USAF is getting funded missions. The loss of USAF support is seen more in Cadet Programs where military bases in many cases are no longer available to support encampments, or USAF to furnish airlift. Look at Florida, with Avon Park AFS, MacDill, Patrick, Eglin, Tyndall AFB's, not one can support a Wing summer encampment.
Also in the 60's the Commander of CAP-USAF was a flag officer, now the CC is normally an O-6. An O-6 requesting something from USAF doesn't have the pull that a General grade officer would have. I agree that CAP in the 60's was more military, but since then the drop in USAF support and the emergence of the CAP Corportaion's increased "power" has changed the structure of CAP. In my mind for the worst.
So now CAP has to learn the ICS system which while based on the military is operated as a totally civilian program.

[JohnKachenmeister]

^ I can't argue with anything you say.

Our National Commander used to be an Air Force officer, too.

I think it IS easier, however, to learn ICS once you have experience on a military staff.  The Planning Section Chief does pretty much the same as the S-2.  Ops Section Chief... S-3.  ICS is a lot more flexible in terms in increasing and decreasing the size and complexity of the staff as the needs of the mission change.  The military would simply use a larger unit.  Overall, however, ICS is pretty much the same once you learn the new terms.

[Short Field]

No, under Unified Command all the ICs form a team and all are resposible for supervising the single ICS structure below them.  Personally, I think it would be quite a struggle to implement such a structure, but that is how the "book" says it is supposed to be done. 

One OSC and 20 ICs supervising him???  When you take ICS 400, ask them about this.  The ICS Staff works for the "spokesman" IC.  Otherwise they would be stepping on each other giving "advice and direction" and no one on the staff could get any work done.   Unity of Command and a clear Chain of Command are critial for any sucessful operation.  The "spokesman" IC is the only one with a voice - the rest of them stay in the tent.

[RiverAux]

ShortField I have taken both ICS 300 and 400 and I assure you everything I said about how a Unified Command is supposed to work was written with the student manual open in front of me on the desk.  The spokesman IC is not the "head IC" or anything like that, he is just the conduit between the mission staff and the other ICs and has not one iota of more authority than the rest of them. 

Personally, I don't see how Unified Command could ever work well and I'm not promoting its use -- just telling you how DHS says it is supposed to work.

[Short Field]

The spokesman IC is not the "head IC" or anything like that, he is just the conduit between the mission staff and the other ICs and has not one iota of more authority than the rest of them. 

The bold portion of your quote is the point I was trying to make all along - the "spokesman" IC is between the mission staff and the other ICs.  The rest of the ICs are not wandering around the ops center trying to direct the activity.   

Unified Commands ONLY work well when all the ICs understand they are there to accomplish a mission and avoid jurisdictional roadblocks.  The moment you get a couple of ICs trying to exert their Command Authority, it starts falling apart.

[RiverAux]

The rest of the ICs are not wandering around the ops center trying to direct the activity.   

Never said they would be doing that. 

However, they would all be in on all the planning meetings with the staff and in order to be able to set the overall direction they all need to be very familiar with how the ICS system set up underneath them is working and what each part of it is up to. 

[isuhawkeye]

as someone who has worked several IC situations I am a firm believer of unified command, I have come to prefer the buy in an support that is generated when you have agency reps from the major players working together to establish the Command. 

It works, and it works well.

[RiverAux]

Here is an interesting fact from a recent NHQ press release http://www.cap.gov/visitors/news/media_center/press_releases/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&nodeID=6194&newsID=4394&year=2008&month=6

The CAP portion of the Fosset search cost the AF $180,000.  Thats actually a lot more than I had thought. 

This language is kind of interesting:

Sorties flown by CAP, at no cost to the state of Nevada, cost approximately $180,000, which amounts to less than $101 per flying hour, making CAP much more cost effective than other aircraft that would have been necessary without CAP.

Its the language about the state of Nevada that got my attention.  I'm assuming then that this was sent out to Nevada papers as part of the response to the audit of state costs of the mission. 

While I suppose its not bad to get the word out about CAP's cost effectiveness, it could be seen as a sort of stick in the eye of the Governor and the state of Nevada.  It doesn't say it, but the powerplayers could read it as a slap in the face for wasting state money on the search when the AF was happy to pay a lot of money for a lot more flight hours than came out of the state assets. 

[lordmonar]

There is so much trouble with the Govenor right now...that this "stick in the eye" will not even cross anyone's radar.

[arajca]

I think it's more of a defensive action. With the impression of wasteful spending, it is easy to assume that everyone involved was being wasteful. Pointing out the cost for CAP's portion, and that it was not paid by Nevada, helps to reinforce our cost effectiveness.

[RiverAux]

I understand the motivation and I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with it, I just would have left out the reference to the state of Nevada.  Instead, I would have pointed out that the costs were borne by the federal government.  That would put a slightly less offensive spin on it.