MOU Washington Wing - WA Dept of Transportation

[SeattleSarge]

For your consideration;

Attached is the recently signed Memorandum of Understanding between Washington Wing and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT).  According to state law, the Aviation Division of WSDOT has the responsibility for air SAR within the state.

Of note is the fact that Washington Wing has already broken this agreement with their lack of cooperation in joint training.

-Ron Kruml

Ronald G. Kruml, TSgt, CAP
Public Affairs - Mission Aircrewman
Seattle Composite Squadron PCR-WA-018
http://www.capseattlesquadron.org

[lordmonar]

For your consideration;

Attached is the recently signed Memorandum of Understanding between Washington Wing and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT).  According to state law, the Aviation Division of WSDOT has the responsibility for air SAR within the state.

Of note is the fact that Washington Wing has already broken this agreement with their lack of cooperation in joint training.

-Ron Kruml

Ronald G. Kruml, TSgt, CAP
Public Affairs - Mission Aircrewman
Seattle Composite Squadron PCR-WA-018
http://www.capseattlesquadron.org

Are you saying that in the last 14 days....WAWG has refused to do joint training?

[SeattleSarge]

Are you saying that in the last 14 days....WAWG has refused to do joint training?

That is exactly what I'm saying.  The Wing Chief of Staff for Operations (don't even start about the title) has refused to cooperate with WSDOT in the flight training of Mission Observers.

What a world....

-Ron Kruml

Ronald G. Kruml, TSgt, CAP
Public Affairs - Mission Aircrewman
Seattle Composite Squadron PCR-WA-018
http://www.capseattlesquadron.org

[RiverAux]

Uh, exactly what provision did they break? I see a clause 6b that says that both parties will communicate about training and clause 6c that says that CAP facilities might be used for training WA personnel (which requires a separate annual plan which probably hasn't been done yet).

[DNall]

Uh, exactly what provision did they break? I see a clause 6b that says that both parties will communicate about training and clause 6c that says that CAP facilities might be used for training WA personnel (which requires a separate annual plan which probably hasn't been done yet).

Without even reading the document I'm going to have to think that's right. You can't just go flying non-members around regardless of MOU. As I understand it requires region LO approval on a case by case basis. It would seem to me that WAWG may have allowed some things in this MOU which exceed their authority.

[RiverAux]

No, it accounted for that sort of thing. 

[Larry Mangum]

It is interesting that that the person from Seattle Squadron states that WAWG has broken the agreement.  In fact what happened was that the course director refused to use a CAP IC instead of a state IC.  The training in question was to have trained 6 CAP observers using cap funding, cap planes and cap instructors and cap created training syllabus.  The only thing that WSDOT was doing was providing one class on State law pertaining to SAR and the Washington Administrative code.  This was purely a cap event and not a joint training event.  So I am curious as to how the new MOU was violated.  Oh yeah, the Chief of Staff, Operations also consulted with the region DO, Ed Lewis and John Demarais at national before reaching the decision that a CAP IC had to be used.  He even offered to be the IC for the training.

[DNall]

^ The problem there is CAP is not remotely NIMS compliant so it would be impossible for WaDoT to allow a CAP "IC" who isn't remotely legal to do anything but sit quietly in the back of the room. Overall teh agreement seems to exceed CAP's authority, at least in spirit, and doesn't seem well advised before CAP gets its crap together on NIMS, at least at your wing level & at least for ICS command staff.

[RiverAux]

I have yet to see anyone point out anything in this MOU that is all that different from the standard CAP-state agreement that you're supposed to have in every Wing. 

What exactly exceeds CAP's authority? 

Assuming WAWing's info is correct, why would we need a non-CAP IC in charge of a CAP activity? 

[afgeo4]

How is CAP not NIMS compliant? From my understanding, CAP works within the NIMS system and any Incident Commander is fully qualified by FEMA as per NIMS operations.

[sardak]

Well, I've tried to download the MOU attachment from the first post several times, but can't.  Therefore I can't comment on the requirements to be the IC for this particular event.

However, there is no such thing as an "Incident Commander fully qualified by FEMA as per NIMS operations."  Neither NIMS nor FEMA define qualifications for an IC or any other position.

There is no "single resource" typing for an ICT3.  The credentialing document only defines a Type 3 IC for an interstate, mutual-aid based response.  The requirements are pretty low.  The recommended training and experience though, are probably more than most CAP ICs have.

As for CAP being NIMS compliant, the requirements for NIM compliance are here:
http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/nims_compliance.shtm

I would tend to agree that CAP is not NIMS compliant because neither the organization nor its members meet all of the requirements.

Mike

[DNall]

There is no "single resource" typing for an ICT3.  The credentialing document only defines a Type 3 IC for an interstate, mutual-aid based response.  The requirements are pretty low.  The recommended training and experience though, are probably more than most CAP ICs have.

Well, they do in relation to certain ICSNIMS courses, but you're right that qual's beyond that are agency based right now, however the credentialling standards do give you a good idea of the training levels that'll be required in the next fiscal year. And you can see a new thread about the credentialling requirements that just came out (first step in the proces) to back those up.

[SeattleSarge]

It is interesting that that the person from Seattle Squadron states that WAWG has broken the agreement.  In fact what happened was that the course director refused to use a CAP IC instead of a state IC.  The training in question was to have trained 6 CAP observers using cap funding, cap planes and cap instructors and cap created training syllabus.  The only thing that WSDOT was doing was providing one class on State law pertaining to SAR and the Washington Administrative code.  This was purely a cap event and not a joint training event.  So I am curious as to how the new MOU was violated.  Oh yeah, the Chief of Staff, Operations also consulted with the region DO, Ed Lewis and John Demarais at national before reaching the decision that a CAP IC had to be used.  He even offered to be the IC for the training.

The "person" from Seattle was sitting in the MO class in question and has first hand knowledge of what happened.  One of the "six".

WSDOT provided funding in the form of purchasing E6Bs and plotters.  They also duplicated the entire Aircrew/Flightline Task Guide and the entire Aircrew Reference Text along with many other materials for each of the twelve people in the class (six auditing).

In this state, to be used on actual seaches, aircrew members must also be trained and certified to WSDOT standards.  Having a state IC involved in our air qualification would have allowed this CAP-WSDOT certification.  Because of this dispute, we weren't able to qualify for either agency along with wasting valuable time and money.

The Aviation Emergency Services Coordinator (WSDOT) has done all he could to be accommodating and has been sandbagged for his efforts.

This wing is being driven off a cliff on many fronts, but especially in operations.  Many of us who are tired of the distractions and looking elsewhere...

And by the way WAWGCAP, have the courtesy to sign your postings.

-Ron Kruml

Ronald G. Kruml, TSgt, CAP
Public Affairs - Mission Aircrewman
Seattle Composite Squadron PCR-WA-018
http://www.capseattlesquadron.org

[Larry Mangum]

CAP in Washington State when engaged by AFRCC for a missing aircraft search, acts through an Agency Liaison and does not use a CAP IC as the IC for the mission, the IC is always someone from the State Aviation division.  

In regards to the disputed training event, the issue was a person who did not wan to comply with command directives.  That person insisted upon using someone as the CAP IC who is not a CAP IC and tried to get away with it by calling it join training. As defined by both the state and CAP the event was not a joint training event.    Joint training as defined between CAP and the state occurs when multiple organizations are being trained, and or tasking is being generated by another organization.  So if the event used all CAP resources and all participants were CAP then it was a CAP event and not a joint training event.

As a side bar the state and the wing are working together to develop a true joint aircrew training program that is the same for both state, WASAR and CAP, with organizational training that is specific to the members organizational requirements being conducted after the joint training is conducted.

Washington Wing also has several  CAP rated IC's who are also credentialed by the WSDOT Aviation division as an IC for the state. Those individuals have completed all the required ICS / NIMS courses.

[Larry Mangum]

Just because you were setting in the class, does not mean that you are aware of everything that went on.  I doubt you were privy to the conversations between the WSDOT SAR coordinator and the senior wing staff, nor to the conversations with national or the region DO. 

It is unfortunate that you feel that way about operations, but then I forget, you are from the "Seattle Wing" and do not have to comply with wing, region or national directives and guidelines.  It is amazing how you can attack wing for trying to be inclusive in involving people in training rather then it be the "good ol'e boy" club that Seattle is.   Oh wait, are you not the same person who last year during the GTE scheduled a press event, that made the newest, most capable aircraft the wing had not available for the entire day?  Also from the squadron who is boycotting the Graded EVAL this year, because they did not like the location.  IF you want to sling mud, be prepared to take it as well.

[DNall]

CAP in Washington State when engaged by AFRCC for a missing aircraft search, acts through an Agency Liaison and does not use a CAP IC as the IC for the mission, the IC is always someone from the State Aviation division.  

Being an AL doesn't free you from the requirement to meet IC/NIMS required qualifications, nor does it free every single person on the mission. This is a CAP-wide problem that's been building for a few years & is now coming to a head. The more you can do in your wing to be ahead of the game, the better off you'll be internal to your wing & when NHW gets moving on the larger transition.

I'd have to ask though, if that's the way you operate your actual missions, why would you not operate your training that way?

In regards to the disputed training event, the issue was a person who did not wan to comply with command directives.  That person insisted upon using someone as the CAP IC who is not a CAP IC and tried to get away with it by calling it join training. As defined by both the state and CAP the event was not a joint training event.    Joint training as defined between CAP and the state occurs when multiple organizations are being trained, and or tasking is being generated by another organization.  So if the event used all CAP resources and all participants were CAP then it was a CAP event and not a joint training event.

That's a little stupid, but I wuldn't want to comment on your internals. However, joint by definition means two or more working together, so it was joint training, not that it matters to allow an unqual'd person to act as an IC or any other position.

As a side bar the state and the wing are working together to develop a true joint aircrew training program that is the same for both state, WASAR and CAP, with organizational training that is specific to the members organizational requirements being conducted after the joint training is conducted.

Fine, as long as the MOU doesn't give the state the impression they can task CAP resources or that you'll be flying their crews interchangably with your own. What you want to do is put them out of the business of actually doing the work (ie take all that over), and relegate them to management, which is where they belong.

Washington Wing also has several  CAP rated IC's who are also credentialed by the WSDOT Aviation division as an IC for the state. Those individuals have completed all the required ICS / NIMS courses.

That's nice. This would be your guide: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/im-job-titles.pdf (type 1&2 are still in development) AND
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/incident_mgmt.pdf
and for the GT side (including GBD): http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/sar_jobtitle_111806.pdf
Fixed wing crew & UDF aren't full published yet, but refer tot he typing guide: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/508-8_search_and_rescue_resources.pdf


Sounds like some groowing pains, but you guys will do fine as long as everyone drops the pride & acts like adults.

[Larry Mangum]

You are right that an AL must also meet credentialling requirements. 
That is part of the problem in WAWG; for the last 4 years the operations staff has played real loose and issued credentials to people who did not meet the requirements or did not have the experience to do the job. 

WAWG even managed to fail its guided training exercise (GTE) last year and was suspended by the AF from expending any allocated funds from June 06 until October 06. When was the last time that you heard of a wing failing a GTE? 

Since then the wing has had a new wing king, new DO, and the command staff is taking a hard look at how things have been run.  One of the things they found was an aircrew training that was not answer able to anyone, that practiced selective "trainee" selection, IE.. you had to be personally invited in order to participate; and did not comply with cap regulations.  When asked to bring the program in compliance with requirements and to make it open to everyone, resistance was met and ultimately the aircrew training director refused to comply.  So the school was canceled after a lot of soul searching and attempts to find a way around the impasse.  The Chief of Staff even offered to be the IC for the school, and he is both a CAP IC and a WSDOT IC and one of the original observer instructors for the course in the wing; what did he get for his efforts? Dead silence. 

I doubt that the SeattleSarg is aware of all that because he has only heard until now one side of the story and that is from the person who refused to work with the wing to find a solution to the issue.  Seattle is a good unit and is to be commended for their hard work in substaining and if fact growing their unit over the last 3 years or so, however it needs to quit operating as the Seattle wing and become part of Washington Wing again.

[DNall]

First of all, don't make it personal, just cause someone else hasn't seen it thru your eyes. The problem you're talking about is: 1) in the past now; and, 2) occured from a lack of professionalism, so lets set an example for how those people should act so it doesn't happen again.

Second, it's unfortunate that your Wg has been stupid about issuing CAP ratings, but those are completely meaningless & will soon go away to be replaced by NIMS compliance & credentialling by an outside authority.

This is the whole point of NIMS is that when an IC requests a resource that they know what they're getting & everyone has the same standardized minimum base training so they can do the job interoperably.

CAP in the past has been stubborn in thinking that meant people could ask for our help & we could come run our own show on a task by task basis. That's unacceptable post-9/11 & the primary reason for our mission decline.

What's going on now is that other agencies also have tried to play games & work around the loophole to do things their own way (not as bad as CAP, but bad enough). So, NIMS has decided to go forward with a national credentialling system ( http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/ng_0002.pdf in combination with the ones I gave you before). What this does is say you have to get a lot of outside training for all of your people, then conduct a lot more internal training than we have been doing, and then you have to submit it all to a state or federal credentialling office for review. THEY will then decide if you are qualified or not, and THEY will issue a smart-ID card attesting to that. W/o this card you will not be allowed to go on missions or even to operate in any capacity in an incident AO (or the controlling agency WILL be heavuily penalized to include loss of certification & funding).

What I'm saying is yes it looks like you face some problems up there, but the fact that your state agency is so hands on is cuasing you to face some of this before teh rest of CAP feels it. It would be strongly in your interests to get ahold of the situation & start NIMS qual'ing all your people acording to the standards stated in my previous links, so that when the time comes you will be far & away ahead of everyone else, and able to do all this at a reasonable pace where the rest of us are going to be very rushed. You have an opportunity to take the bull by the horns & lead the way for the rest of CAP to follow. I hope that you'll take advantage of that. And gosh, to rise from the depth of the point you describe to the high point I describe, that's something to be proud of right there.