ES mission expansion, could Big Blue back us up?

[abdsp51]

Out of curiosity, has anyone done any kind of "Typed Team" matching to the NIMS team types?

For example, is a GT3 equivalent to at Wilderness SAR IV?
https://www.rkb.us/nimsdetail.cfm?nims_id=183

That type of exercise might be very useful when describing to EMAs what our capabilities are..."Sir, we can deliver 2 Wilderness SAR III teams for you on xx hours notice..." and have that map back to a definition that the customer uses.

Irregardless of what type of spin you put on it, if the training and competence level is not there or the working relationship it's worthless.

[JeffDG]

Out of curiosity, has anyone done any kind of "Typed Team" matching to the NIMS team types?

For example, is a GT3 equivalent to at Wilderness SAR IV?
https://www.rkb.us/nimsdetail.cfm?nims_id=183

That type of exercise might be very useful when describing to EMAs what our capabilities are..."Sir, we can deliver 2 Wilderness SAR III teams for you on xx hours notice..." and have that map back to a definition that the customer uses.

Irregardless of what type of spin you put on it, if the training and competence level is not there or the working relationship it's worthless.

True enough.

But...just for the helluvit, let's presume that we have some properly trained and equipped teams.  Has anyone ever done a good solid mapping as to where a GT1/2/3 maps to in the FEMA Typed Resources list?

[FlyTiger77]

Out of curiosity, has anyone done any kind of "Typed Team" matching to the NIMS team types?

For example, is a GT3 equivalent to at Wilderness SAR IV?
https://www.rkb.us/nimsdetail.cfm?nims_id=183

That type of exercise might be very useful when describing to EMAs what our capabilities are..."Sir, we can deliver 2 Wilderness SAR III teams for you on xx hours notice..." and have that map back to a definition that the customer uses.

Irregardless of what type of spin you put on it, if the training and competence level is not there or the working relationship it's worthless.

But, assuming the training and competence are present (which we can control), it would be a useful cross-reference to facilitate talking apples to apples with customers and potential customers.

[abdsp51]

But, assuming the training and competence are present (which we can control), it would be a useful cross-reference to facilitate talking apples to apples with customers and potential customers.

Ok sir, I'll bite.  Assuming (which I do not like doing) that we were able to have competently trained, and functional teams, then making a comparison to speak the same language would be potentially beneficial. 

The key to this is the ES officer from the squadron, group (if applicable), wing and region establishing, building, and maintaining a positive repoir with other ES, EMA, SAR (pick an alphabet agency) agencies.  As I have said before there needs to be solid training but it has to be usable and teams need to be competent, professional and stay in their lane. 

Refer to my early post here for items that can be used to "expand" ES.

[isuhawkeye]

But, assuming the training and competence are present (which we can control), it would be a useful cross-reference to facilitate talking apples to apples with customers and potential customers.

Yes, several of us have done crosswalks to the various NIMS resource typed definitions and several of us have used those analysis to build relationships.

Ok sir, I'll bite.  Assuming (which I do not like doing) that we were able to have competently trained, and functional teams, then making a comparison to speak the same language would be potentially beneficial. 

The key to this is the ES officer from the squadron, group (if applicable), wing and region establishing, building, and maintaining a positive repoir with other ES, EMA, SAR (pick an alphabet agency) agencies.  As I have said before there needs to be solid training but it has to be usable and teams need to be competent, professional and stay in their lane. 

Refer to my early post here for items that can be used to "expand" ES.

[sardak]

Yes, people have developed the crosswalk as suggested. Those interested in trying this should also ponder this document, which is other "direction" from FEMA: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/sar_jobtitle_111806.pdf

Mike

[Fubar]

1) Remove rescue from our ES philosophy as we do not rescue anyone.

I could not agree with you more, but good luck convincing ground teams of that. Each team I see go out on exercises come equipped with enough medical gear to be dropped into a war zone, not to mention the stokes basket and O2 tanks they lug around. If they found someone in actual medical distress, the medical helicopter would get there before they had a chance to crack open a band aid.

2) Standardize training and equipment across the board period.

Don't we do that now with the GT SQTRs?

3) Highlight ALL requirements to participate in anything SAR this includes CAP, state, county and if need be city requirements.  (this is a big thing here for a person I know here in Az.)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. We have our SQTRs which highlight our requirements, are you running into governmental bodies placing additional requirements for SAR participants? How is this having a major impact on a single member in a wing?

4) Build, and maintain relationships with the applicable agencies and don't expect wing, region or ma blue to do it.

Again on the nose, but wing, region, and perhaps NHQ need to be in the loop while developing those relationships. Undersell and over-deliver (to quote Eclipse).

5) Provide functional training that is easy to understand and easy to evaluate and streamline the approval process.

I haven't found our SQTR process to be confusing. Find people who know what they're doing to show you the stuff and then demonstrate to a SET that you in fact understand the stuff. Participate in two missions and just like that, you're qualified.

[Private Investigator]

I haven't found our SQTR process to be confusing. Find people who know what they're doing to show you the stuff and then demonstrate to a SET that you in fact understand the stuff. Participate in two missions and just like that, you're qualified.

The problem is finding people who know what they are doing. And getting them to mentor the next generation. i.e., The Mayberry SQ that was so active the last 20 years is not doing anything since Barney had a stroke and Andy moved away to be closer to his grandchildren. Gomer went on deployment for 11 months and now that he is back he is burnt out. That leaves Goober, and while he has done missions he is not that bright as a teacher and he likes to do everything the easy way. So now what?

[abdsp51]

1) Remove rescue from our ES philosophy as we do not rescue anyone.

I could not agree with you more, but good luck convincing ground teams of that. Each team I see go out on exercises come equipped with enough medical gear to be dropped into a war zone, not to mention the stokes basket and O2 tanks they lug around. If they found someone in actual medical distress, the medical helicopter would get there before they had a chance to crack open a band aid.

2) Standardize training and equipment across the board period.

Don't we do that now with the GT SQTRs?

3) Highlight ALL requirements to participate in anything SAR this includes CAP, state, county and if need be city requirements.  (this is a big thing here for a person I know here in Az.)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. We have our SQTRs which highlight our requirements, are you running into governmental bodies placing additional requirements for SAR participants? How is this having a major impact on a single member in a wing?

4) Build, and maintain relationships with the applicable agencies and don't expect wing, region or ma blue to do it.

Again on the nose, but wing, region, and perhaps NHQ need to be in the loop while developing those relationships. Undersell and over-deliver (to quote Eclipse).

5) Provide functional training that is easy to understand and easy to evaluate and streamline the approval process.

I haven't found our SQTR process to be confusing. Find people who know what they're doing to show you the stuff and then demonstrate to a SET that you in fact understand the stuff. Participate in two missions and just like that, you're qualified.

1)  Anyone who thinks we rescue is delusional and unless they are properly trained and certified by an applicable state or fed agency in the use of the equipment that is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

2)  There is what the SQTR says but how standard is this across the board and your own response to my first item indicates equipment is not so standard.

3)  In Az you will not receive a GT rating unless you have the state mandated SARTECH training as well.  This impacts others as the training may be free but it is also 80-100 for the cert test.  I know personally of one person this has impacted and has dropped doing GT at all costs.

5)  I have seen the training standards and curriculum put out for alot of these tasks and honestly my 8yo could do a better job of putting something together.  And let's be honest how many "trainers" just read the slide and have to practical knowledge of what they are teaching much less a working knowledge of the tasks.  You can find people who know what they are doing but may not want to contribute.

From the time I rejoined till now I keep getting pinged about doing ES and flying and everything and my answer is and always will be no.  I have said I will teach skills neccessary but I am not going to participate at all. 

[RiverAux]

I have said I will teach skills neccessary but I am not going to participate at all. 

Great, just what we need -- someone teaching that has no recent experience. 

[Eclipse]

3)  In Az you will not receive a GT rating unless you have the state mandated SARTECH training as well. 

I don't see this in a published supplement.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

3)  In Az you will not receive a GT rating unless you have the state mandated SARTECH training as well. 

I don't see this in a published supplement.

Beat me to it!

[PHall]

3)  In Az you will not receive a GT rating unless you have the state mandated SARTECH training as well. 

I don't see this in a published supplement.

Don't need to be in a CAP Supplement if it's a State Law.

[JeffDG]

3)  In Az you will not receive a GT rating unless you have the state mandated SARTECH training as well. 

I don't see this in a published supplement.

Don't need to be in a CAP Supplement if it's a State Law.

The Arizona Legislature has passed a bill saying that "In order to be qualified as a GTM in CAP, one must have SARTECH training?

[Eclipse]

+1.

[Garibaldi]

3)  In Az you will not receive a GT rating unless you have the state mandated SARTECH training as well. 

I don't see this in a published supplement.

Don't need to be in a CAP Supplement if it's a State Law.

The Arizona Legislature has passed a bill saying that "In order to be qualified as a GTM in CAP, one must have SARTECH training?

There was an effort to get CAP's ground side up to par and on the same page as local and state SAR agencies a few years ago. In Arkansas it was recommended, but not forced upon us, to go to SARTECH training. I believe that NHQ's ES officer made some strides into getting that into the curriculum. It's been a while, for all I know it's already part and parcel of the curriculum and I'm talking out my...hind end. But some states DO require every SAR agency to be on the same page as far as training and functionality.

[PHall]

3)  In Az you will not receive a GT rating unless you have the state mandated SARTECH training as well. 

I don't see this in a published supplement.

Don't need to be in a CAP Supplement if it's a State Law.

The Arizona Legislature has passed a bill saying that "In order to be qualified as a GTM in CAP, one must have SARTECH training?

But they could make one saying that anyone who does GSAR in the State must meet or exceed SARTECH training requirements.
This would apply to everyone, CAP, the Sheriffs, whoever.

I don't live in Arizona, so I don't know if they have done anything like this. But they could if they wanted too.

[Eclipse]

But they could make one saying that anyone who does GSAR in the State must meet or exceed SARTECH training requirements.
This would apply to everyone, CAP, the Sheriffs, whoever.

I don't live in Arizona, so I don't know if they have done anything like this. But they could if they wanted too.

They certainly could, that doesn't change anything internal to CAP.  You can't raise the bar on something like a GT rating
without an NHQ approved, published supplement, which does not appear to be the case in AZ.  The fact is that
anyone from another wing could transfer in with a GTL, etc., and they'd still be that regardless of whatever the state law is.

Now, if AZWG wants or needs to put a policy in place that only GTs with SARTech are allowed to deploy, well, good on them,
however that isn't likely going to mean anything for a large incident where multiple wings respond.

Bottom line, Arizona law has no say in what it takes to become a CAP GT, and if someone on their wing staff is denying
the rating based on this, absent a supplement, that's not cricket.

[sardak]

abdsp51 never said state law, he said

3)  In Az you will not receive a GT rating unless you have the state mandated SARTECH training as well.

One of the other posters put the spin on it

The Arizona Legislature has passed a bill saying that "In order to be qualified as a GTM in CAP, one must have SARTECH training?

and someone else jumped in by saying "+1" to the incorrect statement.

SAR Tech is not "state mandated," which is a far cry from legislative action, but what is mandated, from the Arizona Search and Rescue Coordinator's "Basic Search and Rescue" manual, 2d edition, Feb. 5, 2013, page 2:

Section 1.2
Arizona Requirements of Volunteers
There are basic minimum requirements for an individual to participate in a SAR incident in Arizona. To be deployed the individual must at least:
- Be affiliated with a recognized government entity, for example, a Sheriff's Office, the Civil Air Patrol (CAP), or the Arizona Division of Emergency Management (ADEM).
- Pass a basic background check.
- Complete a 2-day "Introduction to Arizona Search and Rescue" course, or equivalent, conducted by members of the Arizona Search and Rescue Coordinators Association.
- Complete an OSHA course on Bloodborne Pathogens and Body Substance Isolation Procedures, and renew it annually.
- Be equipped to stay in the field for 24 hours without support.

I believe that NHQ's ES officer made some strides into getting that into the curriculum. It's been a while, for all I know it's already part and parcel of the curriculum

No 

and I'm talking out my...hind end

?

Mike

[Eclipse]

Isn't that awesome?  Does anyone read the regs anymore except us?