Cadets as CULs

[Spam]

Therefore, it is certainly in accordance with CAP regulations to have age 18+ cadet GTLs leading a team in the field, as long as CPP policy is adhered to by ensuring the team includes an approved senior member (who is also at least GTM3* in order to legally sortie). If the team will use a COV, members under 21 (including under 21 year old FO/TFO/SFO qualified GTLs) may not be the vehicle driver, thus requiring an over-21 qualified driver (who again must be at least GTM3* in order to legally sortie).

Tactically, I've seen this work out just fine. I've had multiple age 19/20 year old cadets (Spaatz cadet GTLs, even) tactically leading a team with a 40 year old driver under their command. My oldest cadet officer GTL son just turned 21 but was in the same situation. Not an issue.

The key being all members are team-qualified,

You can't send slick-sleeve / no rating "super nice Lt carter who has a CAP DL" with the team as
a "chaperone, driver, "safety senior", whatever, unless they are qualified to be there.

And it happens all the time for expedience.
"Well unless he drives we can't send the team..."

Then then don't go.

Agreed. GTM3* - top half prereqs minimum.

V/r
Spam

[Spam]

But back to the core question: can (should) cadets (especially minors) be effective CULs.

My answer, aside from the demonstrated skills as I've said, is that I need my subordinate mission staff to be able to "carry a message to Garcia". I've used the "Message to Garcia" teaching tool with my cadet NCOs and officers for a couple of decades, and frankly that is the caliber of person I want, calendar age regardless, sixteen or eighty six years of age.

GreatValue - that's my litmus test. Go look it up and read it, and give us a summary of how a cadet CUL would take on similar tasks.


V/r
Spam

[ZigZag911]

Agreed.

"Just a driver" should stay in the van while teams carries out tasking.

I was referring to cadet GTL  with senior GTM3, possibly  new to qualification.  Such a senior is responsible for safety and CPP, but not directing accomplishment of tasking.

[Eclipse]

No. "Just a driver" is not allowed on the sortie.

"Just a driver" can't even sign into the mission in most cases.

And no, MSAs and GES only are not drivers.

[Spam]

Someone who is "only" a driver (meaning, a CAP driver, but not at a minimum GTL3 trainee) should never even leave mission base. If he's not GES minimum, he shouldn't even be signed into the mission.


V/r
Spam

[Spam]

No. "Just a driver" is not allowed on the sortie.

"Just a driver" can't even sign into the mission in most cases.

And no, MSAs and GES only are not drivers.

Heh.  In sync.

V/r
Spam

[Fubar]

Someone who is "only" a driver (meaning, a CAP driver, but not at a minimum GTL3 trainee) should never even leave mission base.

You have to find a GT qualified person to drive the van the sUAS guys are in? That seem like a waste of resources. Or what about the safety officer who deploys to the FOB to have eyes on scene? Or the Chaplain who heads to the find location to comfort family members and/or searchers?

These are not edge cases, these are things I've seen done. People should be qualified for their assignment, driving a vehicle simply requires a CAP driver's license.

[Spam]

Sure, Fubar. Its about risk management and addressing liability via avoidance of negligent appointment and negligent supervision to standards of practice.

- To drive a vehicle to non ES events, a CAP DL is required.

- To drive a vehicle on a ground sortie on a vehicle checked in to an AFAM, you need to be released.

- To drive a vehicle on a GT ground sortie on a vehicle checked in to a AFAM, you need to have the CAP DL and be entered on the GT sortie in WMIRS (and as part of the GT, be legally deployable, at least as a trainee GTM3 (top half prep and fam tasks) under the supervision of the GTL.

- To deploy one of the cases you mention, your sortie should still be tracked in WMRS and briefed by the IC/GBD. By the current regs, they thus manage and mitigate the risk of sending people on air or ground sorties. Sending solo drivers not GT qualified into an incident scene possibly in the back country isn't (shouldn't be) an unmanaged risk (I was on a mission in MDWG in the late 90s where a solo driver fell asleep during demob coming down after a night on the mountain, and was killed).


Thus we use this often maligned system to manage risk. We train to task to manage risk. To return to the main thread topic, we manage risk for CULs via a qualification on the basis (regardless of age, in the CUL case) of gaining the recommendation of the SET evaluator on SQTR tasks, passing the formal ICS training, and performing adequately on two training missions. There is a fairly interesting section on standards and liability in SAR in some of the "Managing the Search Function" courses, if you're interested, that speaks to this.


V/r
Spam

[CAP9907]

On topic, please. Start a new thread to debate this if you wish.

~9907