CAP GSAR capability

[RiverAux]

I think we'll probably end up copying the NASAR program but use the "or equivalent" clause to create our own credentialing system.

That is more or less what we have right now.  Though I can't say it for a fact, I would be incredibly surprised if we didn't steal the idea for most of our GT tasks from NASAR back when they were developing the current GT curriculum in the late 90s. 

[DNall]

when we went to NASAR certification for TXWG GSARSS, the local evaluator dude passed on some very usefull info:

CAP/CAP instructors could receive some type of special evaluator rating or special membership catagory for CAP that  in essence they would be able to evaluate the parctical tests for whatever they are quiaifed in (ie SARTECH II, I etc) under the supervision of a regular NASAR coordinator, (dont know if thats direct or "hands off" superviosion) the catch, it could be only for CAP members.  (which also eliminates anything but the NASAR cost for the test)  I dont remember the exact details or appropriate "title" for the membership catagory but that would make meeting NASAR standard much more realistic.

That's one proposed solution that CAP could go with, and NASAR would certainly agree to since they'd make massive bank off it with no investment & still have control over standards.

I think we'll probably end up copying the NASAR program but use the "or equivalent" clause to create our own credentialing system.

That is more or less what we have right now.  Though I can't say it for a fact, I would be incredibly surprised if we didn't steal the idea for most of our GT tasks from NASAR back when they were developing the current GT curriculum in the late 90s. 

We almost certainly will go with the "equiv" clause. That is somewhat problematic. It's not supposed to be agency developed equiv. It's supposed to be an alternate certification that's national standard equiv and/or state certified. I think we can get away with a CAP standard, but that's not my concern.

What we have now is NOT equiv. The issue is MUCH less about the task guide (which sucks beyond belief), and more about the standards enforcement and tracking. In CAP, you self-certify. You yourself put in an ID number for an evaluator. That evaluator never confirms they approved that task for you on that date. It's all just on the honor system. That evaluator is not themselves evaluated on teaching tasks or evaluating their performance. It's not even mandatory nationally that the evaluator be expert in the rating, just minimally qualified themselves. That's like a brand new pilot with 50hrs total time turning around & giving instruction to a brand new student pilot off the street. That's insane. What we get is a set of ratings that can't be counted on to mean anything about a person's actual training/ability/competence. It's not at all standardized in delivery or management, and it's not at all credible.

NASAR is far from perfect, but what it is is standardized in delivery with a lot of credibility from outside agencies that the various levels mean what they say. And it's actually recognized, where CAP is not, much less GTM3/2/1.

[sarmed1]

would be incredibly surprised if we didn't steal the idea for most of our GT tasks from NASAR

Not to derail the thread in anyway, but actually quite a few of the tasks are nearly identical from the differant levels of PAWG Ranger grade testing forms from the time the national standard changed from a one-line training requirement to individual tasks/sign off. 

mk

[RiverAux]

The initial CAP GT task guides were prepared in Maryland Wing -- they were using them a few years before national. 

The whole NASAR vs CAP vs something else discussion is sort of irrelevant -- unless DHS or somebody else comes up with specific tasks, testing standards, etc. that we and everyone else are mandated to use, then every organization will continue to go their own way.  And, as the largest ground search and rescue organization in the US, I see no real need to use some other organizations standards just because they've got "National" in their name.  If they've got some sensible tasks that would be of use to us, we should adopt them into our training program as appropriate. 

[sarmed1]

Maryland Wing -- they were using them a few years before national.

yes true, however PAWG was using a taks standard per level well before that, I came on board in 1989 as a cadet and I have a PAWG manual from the early 80's that had task/test standards in it from then....

The idea is picking a standard that everyone (most anyway) will recognize.....ie USA, USAF and USN use the NREMT for their medics basic level of certification, not because they are the gold standard or every task tested meets the agencies needs, but they are most commonly universally recognized by other agencies they may have to interact with.  As an aeromedical evacuation technician I never had an incident or patient that I had to place in a KED, but I had to maintain NREMT and every 3 years get tested on putting the thing on.

The same applies to NASAR.  Sure, CAP could come up with a better skill set, but like stated elsewhere (in this thread and others) no one outside of CAP understands what a GTM1 is and what they are capable of doing unless they work with CAP all of the time.  If I tell someone I have a type II team and all 12 of my guys are SARTECH II's and I am a SARTECH I they have a pretty good idea what our knowledge/skill set is, what equipment we have, what our operational deployment time is and what tasks they can plan to assign us to.  It would be easier to explain a team's additional capabilites (ie comms and ELT search) than to explain the entire task set.   And they know it pretty much within 2 minutes of our check in.....

mk

[isuhawkeye]

to continue the comparison to EMS.  the national registry is a stand alone not for proffit very similar to NASAR.

[RiverAux]

I think that you are dramatically overestimating the knowledge of NASAR standards among those in the community.  Pick a sheriff at random and ask him if he knows the difference and I think you'll find rather quickly that he is willing to take trained help of any kind. 

Again, there are more CAP ground team members than SARTECHs so if people don't know what our folks qualifications are the answer is to make them aware rather than switching to the standards developed by an organization that is smaller than ours. 

[sardak]

Here is my 2 cents worth as Standards Review Manager for NASAR, chairman of the ASTM F-32.02 subcommittee on SAR Operations and Management standards and a member of ASTM committee E54 on Homeland Security standards.

Contrary to how they are referred to, even by many within NASAR, NASAR doesn't produce standards.  SARTECH (tm) has always been a certification program.  In 2003, NASAR removed all references to "standard" from SARTECH documents. This is a contentious issue within NASAR.

The parent standard for the search portion of SARTECH is ASTM Standard F2209.  ASTM Committee F32 on SAR was formed at the request of NASAR in 1988. One of the first documents introduced within the F32 committee was the draft of what would become SARTECH.

In the current version of the FEMA SAR Typing document, listed earlier in this thread by DNall, it lists "MRA 105 Operational Level; or ASTM F-2209 or NASAR SAR Tech II; or equivalent" as a requirement.  The revised typing and credentialing documents, which are currently in work, drop both SARTECH and MRA 105 and list only ASTM F2209 or equivalent for Land SAR Technician. The SAR working group responsible for this operates under FEMA's Incident Management Systems Division (IMSD) and several state SAR coordinators are members of the working group.

What CAP needs to do is revise the GSAR training program to meet or exceed the requirements of ASTM F2209 for GTM and ASTM F2685 for GTL.  This would not be a major project, but it would require new attitudes in CAP.  One that needs to change is the one that we're bigger, so we don't have to change.

CAP doesn't even have to worry about sorting out the technical rescue components of SARTECH because they are in other ASTM documents.  The ASTM committee deliberately separated search from rescue because many organizations don't perform both.

The ASTM SAR committee's next meeting is the end of this week, November 9-10 in Albuquerque, NM.  Membership in ASTM is not required to participate.  An agenda item is changes to F2209 recommended by the IMSD SAR working group, some members of which will be present.  I'm the POC (i.e. principal author) of F2209. The ASTM SAR committee meets in person twice a year, the rest of the time official business is carried out by email and phone.  We meet during the annual NASAR conference and at the end of the annual International Technical Rescue Symposium.

In answer to RA's first post in this thread, I agree that CAP has the GSAR capability to participate on a missing person search but not to provide management of one.  There are CAP members who can manage the search, but their training and experience were obtained outside of CAP.  As for a CAP ground team rating very well in comparison to a local team on a non-technical search for a lost person, there are too many variables to make such a blanket statement.  From personal experience, I wouldn't make that statement.

Mike

[RiverAux]

ASTM F2209

Where are these documents available?

I agree that CAP's current training system does not adequately prepare our folks to lead a lost person SAR.  There is no reason that we could not upgrade ourselves so that they do.

[isuhawkeye]

http://www.astm.org/

SAR standard
http://www.astm.org/Standards/F2209.htm

[RiverAux]

Oh gee -- even worse than NASAR -- you have to spend $36 for a 7-page document from an organization that has nothing at all to do with SAR. 

[DNall]

Mike,

Thanks for the updated information. That's news to me, and I appreciate it.

My point is pretty simple, part 1:

What CAP needs to do is revise the GSAR training program to meet or exceed the requirements of ASTM F2209 for GTM and ASTM F2685 for GTL.  This would not be a major project, but it would require new attitudes in CAP.  One that needs to change is the one that we're bigger, so we don't have to change.

Part 2:
That's one item on a page of requirements from FEMA. The entry-level GTM standards need to be changed to meet that whole list. (same deal with GTL & that additional list)

Part 3:
The whole GTM3/2/1 system needs to be dropped in favor or resource typing.

I agree that CAP has the GSAR capability to participate on a missing person search but not to provide management of one.  There are CAP members who can manage the search, but their training and experience were obtained outside of CAP.  As for a CAP ground team rating very well in comparison to a local team on a non-technical search for a lost person, there are too many variables to make such a blanket statement.  From personal experience, I wouldn't make that statement.

I agree with the whole ICP staff aspect. I also agree with River that we need to bring those ratings to standard as well, even if it means a lot of people (including me) lose their ratings & have to build back up or not do those jobs any more.

I've also talked extensively about bumping up our PD programming to deliver the kind of ldrshp/mgmt/planning/operations/etc skills necessary to succeed in those roles. Which also translates back to our non-ES ops.

The difference between being able to make that blanket statement & not is standardization & enforcement. I can look at any medic in the Army & trust they have known skill level. I can't say that about any given GTM3, and I can't differentiate between a GTM3 & GTM2 w/o having worked extensively with the individuals. Our whole system of evaluation & certification has no credibility. That MUST be changed.

I have no problem with CAP doing internal training at or above outside industry standards dictated/suggested/whatever by FEMA. BUT, I'm very hesitant about that unless/until CAP can operate a credible internal credentialing system. Until then, I still favor external certification.

[sarmed1]

I think that you are dramatically overestimating the knowledge of NASAR standards among those in the community.  Pick a sheriff at random and ask him if he knows the difference and I think you'll find rather quickly that he is willing to take trained help of any kind.

Sure I would take any help I can get  too, but that doesnt mean the any help is going to get a tasking any more complicated than:  Walk with this guy in the big field, do what ever he tells you, dont touch anything unless he says to. 

Sorry part of that is based on my experience...ie here in PA the Sheriff is responsible for courtroom security and prisoner transport.  The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) is the primary coordinator for search and rescue efforts on state forest and state park lands within the commonwealth.  Otherwise SAR is handled usually by the fire department of a local SAR team appointed by the county EMA or Fire Department as their missing person WSAR resource.  Those guys know the difference. 
Where I lived in AZ, their sheriff knows the differance as well, they run the SAR team they have deputies who are actually assigned as SAR deputies to coordiante and run SAR missions. 

So like we talked about in other threads, you cant create a blanket statement to cover an entire nationawide organization, as each state (sometimes differant parts of the same state) run their operations very differantly.


mk

[sardak]

Oh gee -- even worse than NASAR -- you have to spend $36 for a 7-page document from an organization that has nothing at all to do with SAR. 

Yep, and ASTM doesn't have anything to do with aviation, but there are committees on light sport aircraft and unmanned aerial systems which the FAA participates in. ASTM only provides the administrative mechanism to develop standards. "Industry" representatives make up the membership of the 130+ committees and actually write the standards. Other than making sure the development process follows procedures, ASTM has no input into the standards.

Cost is an issue, but that's the case with any standards organization, which are generally non-profit.  Their income is from dues and sales. Membership in ASTM ($75/yr) includes one volume of standards. The 88 SAR and EMS standards are in one volume (list here).  A person can participate on ASTM task groups without being a member, and obviously a task group member needs to see the standards, so gets limited free access.

Mike

[Capt Rivera]

I am the WV SAR Coordinator...I would very much have CAP involved as much as possible in our efforts to improve our SAR capabilities....we are currently setting a training standard that may not be NASAR but will be just as good....in 2009 I want to get as many people trained to the basic level as possible.  As for fitting into NIMS and ICS...it would not be a problem...you would use the same personnel and span of control during ops....you would just be given mission assignments by the Ops Officer or Incident Commander...any questions....email... bill.d.kershner@wv.gov.

Welcome to CapTalk and thank you for participating in the discussion.

[NavLT]

I would like to chime in that our GBDs are designed for our Search program.  Running an actual missing person search involves alot more involvement in Rescue, Law Enforcment integration for investigations, missing persons profiles/behaviors. Our program does not organically provide any depth in these areas, some of our GBD types might get it on their own but CAP does not teach or require it.

V/R
LT J.

[Tubacap]

I think that the GBD section is fine, but the PSC section is the place where people need to have some advanced knowledge in missing person SAR.  True it is only the next level up from GBD, but GBD is still only functioning to put assets in the field and assign and track them on given tasks.  Those tasks should come through a knowledgeable PSC.

[DNall]

Seriously, I've staffed a whole lot of big time mission, and I've never seen a PSC that does anything other than take witness reports off the phone. I as GBD, in concert with the AOBD, make the search plan, get a go from the IC, and run the whole mission. The IC deals with outside folks, the PSC & OSC either don't exist, assist the IC, or just stay out of the way. I decide who the teams are, what equipment they're taking, when & where they're going, and what they'll be doing. PSC should be doing a lot more, but they don't. OSC isn't needed 90% of the time cause the scale of our operations just isn't that big.

[NavLT]

The PSC and OSC has been in real use in ICS for years but CAP just added it to the game and 85% of the ICs still either do it them selves or don't do it at all.  PSC is designed for multi-operational period events, most of the time we either don't do those or don't pracitce them (hence nobody gets well trained in them). OSC is often in smaller events in the ICS world but we often default to the old AOBD/GOBD branch level.  ICS would say why do you have branches without the boss above them.... but ICS also says what ever works.

If you are supervising you need to understand the tactical and strategic implications of what you command.  If you are a Ground Branch Dir on a missing person search and you don't know much about rescue, investigations or what missing persons do you cannot task your assets well. If you think just sending them out and puttting there name on the status board is the Ground Branch job then give it to a Mission Base Staff Assistant.

V/R
LT J.

[Short Field]

CAP does a terrible job of training PSCs and OSCs.  If most PSCs can even take a witness report they are doing good.   Then the PSC moves to OSC and just watches the AOBD and GBD do their job.  Then the magic wand is waved and the OSC is now a IC, with basically the same knowledge and capability as the AOBDs and GBDs.