ES mission expansion, could Big Blue back us up?

Started by Walkman, August 27, 2013, 08:50:55 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Walkman

Snip from another thread:

Quote from: PHall on August 26, 2013, 12:18:24 AM
Only problem is that we have to deal with 52 States/Districts/Territories/Commonwealths, and they all seem to have their own rules that we have to play by.

We've seen & felt this reality in one way or another. Wing X is super active in ES within the state & has integrated well with the other players, while members in Wing Z have layers of dust on their 24 hr packs.

I was wondering if there was a way to leverage our Congressional charter & Auxiliary status some way on the national level to even this out? Obviously when FEMA rolls into town, they've got some clout to call shots. Likewise, the AFRCC is coordinating rescue assets for all states, whether the mission involves ANG, us or Coast Guard.

This could be a pipe-dream, but I just think there has to be a way to put us in a more central 'federal" (for lack of a better word) position. There's too many un-used assets within our ranks.

JeffDG

That could well backfire.

Local folks tend to guard their turf rather jealously, and a hint that we're trying to get the feds to throw weight around could well make it worse for us.

Generally speaking (of course there are exceptions), the feds have to be invited in by the state, and in many states, the state has to be invited in by the county.

PHall

Oh yeah, making us "Federal" guys would help out a lot . . . . NOT!

Forcing us down the local agencies throats because we're "Federal" would result in a lot more bruised egos and no work for us.

lordmonar

The fix is simple in concept.....but hard in execution.

We already have a frame work for "normal" ES operations.   

What has to happen is the wing ES director has to meet with his state and major county level ES managers and make changed to our way of doing business to meet their needs and requirements.

Like I said....that sounds simple....but it takes a lot of time and effort to make it happen.

Too often it is just "simpler" to do our own thing and then complain about not getting called.  Or having to deal with how some CAP guy 10 years ago poisoned the well.

And here we are.  Those wings that have made good connections and maintain those connections at the state and county level....get the call and have a lot of ES activity.   Those that don't......don't get called.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

#4
We're already "Federal", that's part of the problem, actually.

State and local agencies aren't even required to consider Federal assistance if they don't want it.

The answer is in the local squadrons and groups making ongoing persistent contacts, underselling and over delivering,
and as part of that, bringing our Federal resources and contacts with us.

"That Others May Zoom"

Eclipse

#5
The fix is essentially the same as the business plan for a new start up.

Who, What, Where, When, How.

Look around and ask...

"Who needs help?"

"What Do They Need?"  (And can we provided it?)

"Where are they and where are we?"

"When will they call us?"

"How will we provide the help, including paying for it?"

I agree that the wing needs to be involved at the state level, but the state EMAs are responding to the
same types of requests we should be - local ones.  When your state and federal agencies get involved it's because
of calls from small agencies or because the number of calls reaches critical mass.

Getting the call directly means you're there from the start.

Just getting from "here" to "steady state" is going to be a multi-year process, and should be coordinated within
the wing and between squadrons to avoid overlap and telling different stories (a big problem in CAP).  When
the scope of the contact exceed the AOR of the echelon involved, you make some calls and go together or
have the next echelon make the contacts until things can be handed off, but ultimately the responsibility is
squarely on the local units, if for no other reason that's where the manpower is.

One of the things we absolutely need to do as part of this assessment is decide who >isn't< our customer,
that's just as important, if not moreso, then who is.

"That Others May Zoom"

RiverAux

I think that the only thing that might help us along those lines is if we were known only as the "Air Force Auxiliary".  I think that would give us a slight increase in credibility and understandability when dealing with locals.  The details of our relationship with the AF are so complicated that trying to explain who the CAP is and how we relate to the AF causes people just to not want to deal with us because they don't understand us. 

Now, that is only a relatively small part of the puzzle, but it is a factor.

Walkman

Good stuff, here everyone. I was taking a break at the end of the day while reading the other thread didn't really think long and hard about it before I posted my question.

It really is local, local local isn't it?

JayT

Quote from: Walkman on August 28, 2013, 02:49:18 AM
Good stuff, here everyone. I was taking a break at the end of the day while reading the other thread didn't really think long and hard about it before I posted my question.

It really is local, local local isn't it?

In the three natural disasters I've been involved with as a paramedic (Irene with a private EMS agency, Sandy with a large hospital based service, and a major blizzard with my full time job at a local Fire Department), I've never had guys with 'FEMA' raid jackets show up and start flashing badges and shouting orders. The emergency management system is, by design, meant to be handled at the lowest level possible. It's only days or longer into an incident, when the local and state systems are overwhelmed or exhausted, that FEMA starts to step in to deploy and/or organize resources on a larger scale.

During the blizzard for example (which I was on duty for something like five straight days for because I physically could not make it home), if you were to show up with a ground team/UDF team, I would be confused to what they were there for. Do they have equipment that can get through heavy snow? Do they have medical training that I recognize (IE, a state agency number and State EMT numbers/ badge numbers)? Or would they just be another resource stuck in the snow. What use are fixed wing aircraft to me when I'm walking to assignments with 70 pounds of equipment because my rig is struck?
"Eagerness and thrill seeking in others' misery is psychologically corrosive, and is also rampant in EMS. It's a natural danger of the job. It will be something to keep under control, something to fight against."

Walkman

Quote from: lordmonar on August 27, 2013, 09:14:41 PM
...Or having to deal with how some CAP guy 10 years ago poisoned the well.

I "heard tell" of that kind of thing when I was in another wing. Does anyone have real first hand knowledge of one of these incidents? It almost seems to be like the CAP officer demanding a salute from an AD airman. Lots of the stories in the ether, but no one has ever been there to witness it happening.

It really does boil down to working hard to develop the right relationships at all echelons. I'd bet that there have been some in our ranks that may have perpetuated the "poisoned the well" story as an excuse for not doing the work to build a local relationship.

I'm not denying that it hasn't happened here and there...

Mitchell 1969

Quote from: Walkman on August 28, 2013, 03:46:59 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on August 27, 2013, 09:14:41 PM
...Or having to deal with how some CAP guy 10 years ago poisoned the well.

I "heard tell" of that kind of thing when I was in another wing. Does anyone have real first hand knowledge of one of these incidents? It almost seems to be like the CAP officer demanding a salute from an AD airman. Lots of the stories in the ether, but no one has ever been there to witness it happening.

It really does boil down to working hard to develop the right relationships at all echelons. I'd bet that there have been some in our ranks that may have perpetuated the "poisoned the well" story as an excuse for not doing the work to build a local relationship.

I'm not denying that it hasn't happened here and there...

Not first hand, but I have actual second hand from a captain who had to deal with the outfall from a survival class with a "field exercise."  Seems one of the students decided to "impress" everyone by starting a fire and cooking a bird.

Said bird was a pet goose that he strangled, with the girl who owned it discovering the smoke....
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.

Eclipse

#11
I do, sadly.

In the ES realm it isn't likely to be about a wives tale regarding saluting or other trivialities like that.

It is almost always either underperforming, and or in a >lot< of cases, the GOBN at it's "best".  One
of CAP's best friends and worst enemies can be someone in a high place.  Take a look at what happened
in IAWG for an example of the risks.

Tromping in the fields may well be a young man's game, but a lot of the 4-letter agencies and local EMAs,
etc., are run by "seasoned" individuals, and in a lot of cases they have a fiefdom to protect. GOB #1
decides he no longer likes GOB#2, and GOB#2 happens to be in CAP, and before you know it
the doors are closed and no one will take your calls.  The issue may have absolutely nothing to
do with CAP, but "I'm not dealing with Jenkins, any more..." (etc.).

Politics, power, and not to mention money.  The unionized members of a department's aviation
unit, for example, aren't necessarily going to be excited when CAP shows up and starts doing
their job for free, even if it's only a tiny piece.  Multiply that times every other local agency with
overtime hours to protect, etc.

Getting people to return your calls is hard enough, getting a meeting is even harder, then you
work for months and years to form a relationship, have some success along the way and then
out of nowhere some misinformed goober shows up in a Whacker Mobile and tries to take
over from the pros and the next thing you know they don't want you around any more.

Then there's the minefield of SAR Councils and non-profits.  Anyone who wants to can print
a business card and call themselves a first responder, but for every legitimate trained and
organized group, there's ten who are either cop groupies who just want to "run with lights"
or "moms who realized they can write off their dog if they take a SAR course and call themselves
a search team".  We get lumped in with both of the latter, and in too many cases they
are looking to attach themselves to our legitimacy as a national organization because they
aren't being taken seriously as individual groups.   There's a >lot< of conferences, breakfasts,
picnics, and other "training" events with a lot of smoke and not much fire.

All of the above, and plenty more, is usually standing between us and missions.

"That Others May Zoom"

Private Investigator

Quote from: Walkman on August 28, 2013, 03:46:59 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on August 27, 2013, 09:14:41 PM
...Or having to deal with how some CAP guy 10 years ago poisoned the well.

I "heard tell" of that kind of thing when I was in another wing. Does anyone have real first hand knowledge of one of these incidents? It almost seems to be like the CAP officer demanding a salute from an AD airman. Lots of the stories in the ether, but no one has ever been there to witness it happening.

I wish it was that light. Saluting whatever.

It is usually lingering and or loitering at a plane crash site. We find it, wait for the authorities to arrive, debrief and leave. But for some reason we have people who want to talk to every deputy that goes on scene, ask when the sheriff will get there and stick around for hours until NTSB gets there.

The other thing is bad judgement. One example is allegedly a GTL had to use a pistol to open a gate while tracking an ELT thru the countryside. That is wrong on how many levels? What do you think the Sheriff and the Highway Patrol thinks of that?  ::)

sardak

Quote
Quote..Or having to deal with how some CAP guy 10 years ago poisoned the well.
I "heard tell" of that kind of thing when I was in another wing. Does anyone have real first hand knowledge of one of these incidents?
I have had to personally deal with cleaning up these messes, a half dozen times I can immediately recall, in two different wings. Most of them were ground team related, but aircrews and ICs have been at the root of the problem, too.

On to your original question.

QuoteOnly problem is that we have to deal with 52 States/Districts/Territories/Commonwealths, and they all seem to have their own rules that we have to play by.
There's a reason for this, the US Constitution, but we'll stay at a working level. NASAR, the National Association for Search and Rescue, started out as NASARC, the National Association of Search and Rescue Coordinators. NASARC still lives as the State Search and Rescue Coordinators Council (SSARCC).

SSARCC holds its annual meeting every year in conjunction with NASAR. Invitations are sent out by the AFRCC commander to every Governor and the state SAR coordinators of record for every state. One day of the meeting is presentations by our "federal SAR partners" the Coast Guard, AFRCC, FEMA, National Park Service, CAP (represented by John Desmarais), NOAA, NASA, and sometimes the Canadian National SAR Secretariat, FCC, NORTHCOM or 1st Air Force.

A number of years ago the AFRCC commander was on a push to get SAR done the same way in every state. That commander and his idea are history. The mantra now is "You've seen SAR in one state, you've seen in SAR in one state." There isn't a SAR coordinator or federal SAR partner that wants a one size fits all. Even within states SAR isn't consistent between jurisdictions, nor should it be.

As others have said, the local agencies (including states) ask for federal assistance when they need it. Even after major disasters FEMA doesn't show up uninvited.

QuoteI was wondering if there was a way to leverage our Congressional charter & Auxiliary status some way on the national level to even this out?
I'm certain this action would have an effect opposite of that desired.

QuoteLikewise, the AFRCC is coordinating rescue assets for all states, whether the mission involves ANG, us or Coast Guard.
Not quite true, but it really doesn't matter in this context. AFRCC only finds assets when asked, and has no operational command or control over the assets it provides. AFRCC's standard presentation includes the line "we ask, not task" resources, including CAP.

Mike

NIN

I read this on the way to work (hush!) and a couple things hit me.

1) While Big Momma Blue could certainly provide a little "high cover," as stated it might actually put people off.

2) Since this stuff always starts off as "local," I think the important thing for ANYBODY to do as a CAP ES person in charge (Sq/Group/Wing) is to have local contacts that you cultivate and they understand our capabilities and limitations.

3) I bet a lot of local SAR/government issue with using our services is the "how" for getting us called out.  You call the local SAR team, its a local phone number to the guy in the next town over and they mount up and head out like "Right now."  You call Civil Air Patrol, you need to hit the NOC or AFRCC, etc, and no idea whether you get a SAR team, airplane, aerial recon, etc, or not.  (Imagine if you dialed 911 and it went to Tyndall AFB FL and you got told "Well, we gotta check to see if we can respond to that fire or not.." LOL. You'd be like "What?")

4) We need to keep our knifehands strong on our own people (the aforementioned "whackerness") to keep from being our own worst enemy.  GTs need to be well equipped and professional with a maximum of delivery with a minimum of fuss** (more on that in a minute).  Aircrews need to be able to get eyes on target overhead and deliver their product / services in a timely fashion.  We need to get our product (SAR data, visual intel, etc) to the customer in a time/format that is usable and professional.  Some sloppy guy in a greasy flightsuit with massive BO standing there with an SD card he just ripped out of the camera in the back seat saying "We took these here pitchers,  but I don' know nuttin' 'bout computers, so yeah, I dunno what you can do with this thing..." is NOT helpful to CAP, the customer or the USAF.

If Big Mother Blue could help streamline the "employment process" for requesting, alerting, and deploying CAP resources, that would be great.  The SomeCounty, Kansas emergency manager knows that CAP can provide aerial images, but does he want to call Maxwell/Tyndall just to be told "Well, lets see what we can do?" or "Someone will call you back.." or does he get aerial intel in x hrs with a minimum of hassle?

Heck, I know Eclipse has had this conversation in the past regarding alerting & employment.  If you had a disaster tomorrow, and requested CAP in the first 12 hrs, what are the chances that "follow-on forces" (those not in the immediate vicinity of the affected areas) would be alerted, spooled up and enroute to relieve the forces in place in a reasonable timeframe?  Limited, right?  Use Hurricane Sandy as an example:  How long did it take to get non-NER aircrews ID'd, alerted, briefed, enroute and flying sorties that were producing actionable product for the customer?  Meanwhile, NER folks were flat out killing themselves trying to accomplish the mission while hoping that more bodies were going to arrive.

That shouldn't take a week to ten days to make happen. It should take 2-3 days. 


Regarding incidents that have caused us to "lose credibility" to the local SAR agencies:

I did not live here in the northeast when this happened, so I can only go by what others have told me.  But in my wing, the primary SAR agency is the Department of Fish & Game. They do the initial call out to their people and then to specialized SAR teams (including CAP, when it comes to aviation related stuff or clear places where CAP can contribute).  This is especially true up in the mountains, where Eastern Mountain Sports runs a mountain climbing school and they have a well-supported technical SAR team that can do things like rappelling, winter search, etc. 

CAP was, for a time (and I got this from non-CAP SAR people up here), on the "do not bother to call" list for ground-related searches. This was for a number of reasons: 

  • CAP had a rep (rightly or wrongly) that they'd show up with a parallel ICS structure and act like they didn't need to "plug in" to the existing incident structure;
  • They'd show up and act like "All the rest of you can go home now, we're on the case" (I've seen that attitude not just up here on SARs), etc;
  • Ground teams were woefully underequipped and undertrained for the mountains (ie. they'd roll up in a 12 pax 2WD van with 8 "kids" and one "adult," everybody wearing camouflage cotton uniforms, no technical gear, just ALICE pattern web gear, etc.  An incident manager takes one look at SAR team A, the volunteers who have all their own brightly colored technical gear, clothing, ability to get into the search area, etc, and then SAR team B, the CAP folks who look like their own lost-hiker situation, who probably have to hike 3x as far as the other guys to get to a search area that is not located 200m from a paved road, and don't even have comm gear that allows them to talk to the SAR manager, and they go "Yeah, thanks, but we'll take Team A here...");
  • An inability to inter-operate with existing resources (comms & ICS are two areas that come to mind). This is changing, but man, it left a bad taste in a lot of people's minds;

**True Story:  For years after I moved here to the Northeast, we trained and trained and trained during SAREXs and never, ever got a phone call for a "real mission."  Yeah, we'd get the usual ALNOT ramp check, or occasional ELT accidental activation, UDF-style, but no meat & potatoes SAR.  So eventually, people would get disillusioned with ES: "All I do is train, but we never get to use those skills."  I was a GTL and it was a constant battle to keep people motivated to do SAR/DR/ES work, get people to actually respond to alerts, because everybody pretty much knew we were never going to get a phone call for the "big game."

I was semi-active in late 2007 and a hunter went missing in a local state park. Less than six miles from where I lived.  He literally could have gotten lost and walked into the condo complex I lived in, as it backed up to the state park area.  (funny aside, he was related to my ex-wife's family).  I had let my GT quals lapse years before (because we never got called... So much for having 24- and 72-hour packs, right?), so even if CAP got called I wasn't going.

I turn on the TV one night and they're talking about the search and they even mention that CAP is involved.

And they show a shot of searchers standing around in the snow, being briefed by a Fish & Game guy. And there are cadet ground team members! I'm like "YES! FINALLY!" 

Then I notice: they're all wearing ascots, white pistol belts, whistles and I think they even had white laces in their boots.  Nary a field jacket to be found in DECEMBER.  I'm thinking "WHO THE HELL SHOWS UP TO A SAR WEARING AN ASCOT INSTEAD OF A WOOL SCARF?"

It was disheartening to see. Because this is the kind of thing that does not contribute to the team's ability to accomplish the mission, and rather makes us look like clowns to to the folks who do SAR for a living or all the time.

I said it before, but I'll add to it: before Big Mother Blue "backs us," we need to stop being our own worst enemy as far as image, ability, capability and execution goes.

Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversationsâ„¢
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Jaison009

All incidents begin and end locally.

Quote from: Walkman on August 28, 2013, 02:49:18 AM
Good stuff, here everyone. I was taking a break at the end of the day while reading the other thread didn't really think long and hard about it before I posted my question.

It really is local, local local isn't it?

Eclipse

Quote from: NIN on August 28, 2013, 03:07:39 PMThen I notice: they're all wearing ascots, white pistol belts, whistles and I think they even had white laces in their boots.  Nary a field jacket to be found in DECEMBER.  I'm thinking "WHO THE HELL SHOWS UP TO A SAR WEARING AN ASCOT INSTEAD OF A WOOL SCARF?"

It was disheartening to see. Because this is the kind of thing that does not contribute to the team's ability to accomplish the mission, and rather makes us look like clowns to to the folks who do SAR for a living or all the time.

I said it before, but I'll add to it: before Big Mother Blue "backs us," we need to stop being our own worst enemy as far as image, ability, capability and execution goes.

There it is folks, the above thread, especially the last part, in a handy package.

"That Others May Zoom"

Майор Хаткевич

Quote from: Eclipse on August 28, 2013, 03:28:39 PM
Quote from: NIN on August 28, 2013, 03:07:39 PMThen I notice: they're all wearing ascots, white pistol belts, whistles and I think they even had white laces in their boots.  Nary a field jacket to be found in DECEMBER.  I'm thinking "WHO THE HELL SHOWS UP TO A SAR WEARING AN ASCOT INSTEAD OF A WOOL SCARF?"

It was disheartening to see. Because this is the kind of thing that does not contribute to the team's ability to accomplish the mission, and rather makes us look like clowns to to the folks who do SAR for a living or all the time.

I said it before, but I'll add to it: before Big Mother Blue "backs us," we need to stop being our own worst enemy as far as image, ability, capability and execution goes.

There it is folks, the above thread, especially the last part, in a handy package.

But but...the whistle is on the GTM List! And the Belt can be used for gear!

abdsp51

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 28, 2013, 03:41:35 PM
But but...the whistle is on the GTM List! And the Belt can be used for gear!

Sarcasm much?  Honestly the way to resolve alot of this stuff is to:

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

2) Standardize training and equipment across the board period.

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.)

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

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

These are not in any particular order justr thoughts and observations.  Having people that are properly trained and competent and looking the part will go along way. 

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.

abdsp51

Quote from: JeffDG on August 28, 2013, 05:13:22 PM
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

Quote from: abdsp51 on August 28, 2013, 06:23:40 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on August 28, 2013, 05:13:22 PM
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

Quote from: abdsp51 on August 28, 2013, 06:23:40 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on August 28, 2013, 05:13:22 PM
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.
JACK E. MULLINAX II, Lt Col, CAP

abdsp51

Quote from: FlyTiger77 on August 28, 2013, 07:04:29 PM
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


Quote from: abdsp51 on August 28, 2013, 07:28:02 PM
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on August 28, 2013, 07:04:29 PM
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

Quote from: abdsp51 on August 28, 2013, 04:11:26 PM1) 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.

Quote2) Standardize training and equipment across the board period.

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

Quote3) 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?

Quote4) 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).

Quote5) 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

Quote from: Fubar on August 29, 2013, 04:02:56 AM
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

Quote from: Fubar on August 29, 2013, 04:02:56 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 28, 2013, 04:11:26 PM1) 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.

Quote2) Standardize training and equipment across the board period.

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

Quote3) 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?

Quote4) 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).

Quote5) 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

QuoteI 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

#30
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 29, 2013, 02:49:56 PM
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.

"That Others May Zoom"

Phil Hirons, Jr.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2013, 09:02:26 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 29, 2013, 02:49:56 PM
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

Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2013, 09:02:26 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 29, 2013, 02:49:56 PM
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

Quote from: PHall on August 29, 2013, 11:56:34 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2013, 09:02:26 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 29, 2013, 02:49:56 PM
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


"That Others May Zoom"

Garibaldi

Quote from: JeffDG on August 30, 2013, 12:06:41 AM
Quote from: PHall on August 29, 2013, 11:56:34 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2013, 09:02:26 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 29, 2013, 02:49:56 PM
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.
Still a major after all these years.
ES dude, leadership ossifer, publik affaires
Opinionated and wrong 99% of the time about all things

PHall

Quote from: JeffDG on August 30, 2013, 12:06:41 AM
Quote from: PHall on August 29, 2013, 11:56:34 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2013, 09:02:26 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 29, 2013, 02:49:56 PM
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

Quote from: PHall on August 30, 2013, 02:37:35 AM
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.

"That Others May Zoom"

sardak

abdsp51 never said state law, he said
Quote3)  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
QuoteThe 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 Sheri ff'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.

QuoteI 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 
Quoteand I'm talking out my...hind end
?

Mike

Eclipse

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


"That Others May Zoom"

JeffDG

Quote from: sardak on August 30, 2013, 02:49:51 AM
abdsp51 never said state law, he said
Quote3)  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
QuoteThe 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 Sheri ff'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.

QuoteI 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 
Quoteand I'm talking out my...hind end
?

Mike
And what of that has any bearing whatsoever on the qualifications of a CAP member to GTM3?

sardak

It has no bearing, that's the point.

The statement was made
Quote3)  In Az you will not receive a GT rating unless you have the state mandated SARTECH training as well.
Rather than look it up, the statement derailed into a discussion on 60-3 supplements, state laws, SAR Tech, etc.

Just showing that as expected, one can have a GT rating in Arizona without having SAR Tech training, which is why there isn't a supplement, and bringing he discussion back on track.

Mike

abdsp51

Quote from: sardak on August 30, 2013, 08:03:48 PM
Just showing that as expected, one can have a GT rating in Arizona without having SAR Tech training, which is why there isn't a supplement, and bringing he discussion back on track.

Mike

No in Az you can not have  GT rating without SARTECH period.

Eclipse


"That Others May Zoom"

abdsp51

Quote from: Eclipse on August 30, 2013, 11:01:48 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on August 30, 2013, 11:00:20 PM
No in Az you can not have  GT rating without SARTECH period.

Cite please.

Cite, a fellow senior member in my unit who has fulfilled the requirements for his GTM3 that's been sitting at wing and he was told it would not be signed until he has attended SARTECH. That was what was told to not only him but the Sq CC as well. 

Yes there is no supplement on half of the things this wing does, do not even get me started on that.  The above info came straight from the party invovled and the CC directly.

Phil Hirons, Jr.

Cite generally means show something we could verify for ourselves.

If your fellow senior member has completed the training required and is getting told something else not in an approved supplement is required then he has to ask himself (to quote Sean Connery in The Untouchables) "What are you prepared to do about it?"

Eclipse

^ Exactly.  This starts with friendly questions via emails and ends with formal complaints.

This is a serious violation of something which is considered fairly sacrosanct in the ES program - namely that the baseline requirements for ES
are standard nationally, and anything that a wing feels is important enough to add as a gateway, needs to be reviewed and approved by
national >before< a wing is allowed to hold anyone to that different standard.

Just because someone with the keys to the system decides something is important, doesn't give them the right to require it, and that
include the Wing CC himself.  The rulez is the rulez, and anything else just ain't square.

"That Others May Zoom"

abdsp51

Quote from: Eclipse on August 30, 2013, 11:28:55 PM
^ Exactly.  This starts with friendly questions via emails and ends with formal complaints.

This is a serious violation of something which is considered fairly sacrosanct in the ES program - namely that the baseline requirements for ES
are standard nationally, and anything that a wing feels is important enough to add as a gateway, needs to be reviewed and approved by
national >before< a wing is allowed to hold anyone to that different standard.

Just because someone with the keys to the system decides something is important, doesn't give them the right to require it, and that
include the Wing CC himself.  The rulez is the rulez, and anything else just ain't square.

Which is what I have said, and due to this my buddy has wasted money on gear and training and dumped being on GT.

Eclipse

Totally uncool, but won't be "fixed" until someone starts squeaking.

"That Others May Zoom"

Luis R. Ramos

I made a search using "CAP Arizona Wing Supplement."

On the AZ Wing Webpage among ORI, supplements, instructions I found the document Arizona Basic Search Material. It has been prepared by the Arizona Search and Rescue Coordinators, available on https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4KfDchC_yLdZWkzeFlRV2szSzg/edit

This document does read on page 2 those requirements for CAP personnel to participate in searches. Correction, does not say so of CAP personnel, but does say that "volunteers must have those requirements." Also requires affiliation with a sheriff's office, CAP, or other govt entity.

It looks like CAP AZ has taken that stock, lock, and barrel and requires that from its volunteers as well in violation of CAP NHQ procedures.

I will keep looking...

Did not see any supplements stating that CAP AZ personnel must have them...

Also will look for any AZ MOU...

Flyer
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer

a2capt

Quote from: Eclipse on August 30, 2013, 11:28:55 PMJust because someone with the keys to the system decides something is important, doesn't give them the right to require it, and that
include the Wing CC himself.  The rulez is the rulez, and anything else just ain't square.
Funny, that's pretty much the same thing I said about those who don't approve stuff that is supported by regulations, just because "they hold the WSA power, and they don't agree with whatever it is the applicant wants".


No supplement, no more hoops. Approve it, or deny it in writing with a cite as to why. It's all about consistency.

PA Guy

OK, I'm confused.

If I move to AZWG I can keep my CAP GTL rating but if I want to participate in SAR I must also complete the AZ state requirements?

Or if I go to NESA and get my GT 3 rating I must then complete the state mandated training in order to participate in SAR?

PHall

You know, there's one thing you guys might want to consider.
CAP is NOT the lead agency for GSAR in any state/territory/commonwealth/district.
We operate in each state at their pleasure...

a2capt

Very true. But that does not change our regulation that governs how we get our training annotated.

If the state has a law that requires something before you can act as such, then that should be separate from our system, and it should be on a Wing level supplement that says "you will not be dispatched on a mission" without that proof on file, within the state of AZ.

But if someone is all qualified, and the only thing they do is NESA each year, as an example. Whatever Arizona says, has nothing to do with that participation and performance, which our regulation completely supports. 

Of, I'm sure there will be someone that disagrees with that  because they never go on a "real" mission, but the regulation does not say anything about that.

abdsp51

Quote from: PHall on August 31, 2013, 01:21:36 AM
You know, there's one thing you guys might want to consider.
CAP is NOT the lead agency for GSAR in any state/territory/commonwealth/district.
We operate in each state at their pleasure...

Nothing wrong with that, but to have a member meet the organizations requirements for something and be told no because he/she doesn't have something that they were not informed with to start is BS on a major scale.  We want people to play in ES be honest and upfront about all requirements to participate.

JeffDG

Quote from: flyer333555 on August 31, 2013, 12:17:35 AM
I made a search using "CAP Arizona Wing Supplement."

On the AZ Wing Webpage among ORI, supplements, instructions I found the document Arizona Basic Search Material. It has been prepared by the Arizona Search and Rescue Coordinators, available on https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4KfDchC_yLdZWkzeFlRV2szSzg/edit

This document does read on page 2 those requirements for CAP personnel to participate in searches. Correction, does not say so of CAP personnel, but does say that "volunteers must have those requirements." Also requires affiliation with a sheriff's office, CAP, or other govt entity.

It looks like CAP AZ has taken that stock, lock, and barrel and requires that from its volunteers as well in violation of CAP NHQ procedures.

I will keep looking...

Did not see any supplements stating that CAP AZ personnel must have them...

Also will look for any AZ MOU...

Flyer
Here's all the currently approved supplements to 60-3, which is where this would need to live:
http://capmembers.com/emergency_services/operations_support/approved-supplements-waivers-ois-etc-to-capr-60-3/

Only CO, NC, NER and MER have currently approved supplements to 60-3.

For reference, all 60-3 supplements have to be approved by both NHQ and CAP-USAF:
Quote1-2. Supplements and Waivers. Supplements to this regulation cannot be issued below the wing level (except Congressional Squadron) and require region commander, NHQ CAP/DO, and CAP-USAF/XO approval. Requests for waivers or supplements must be submitted via chain of command to the CAP and CAP-USAF region commanders and then to NHQ CAP/DO for further consideration.

Eclipse

Quote from: PHall on August 31, 2013, 01:21:36 AM
You know, there's one thing you guys might want to consider.
CAP is NOT the lead agency for GSAR in any state/territory/commonwealth/district.
We operate in each state at their pleasure...

The State of Arizona does not dictate to CAP what the rules are for the award of our badges and ratings internally.

If they want to make up some silly rules that generate revenue for a private association in order to participate, so be it,
that has nothing to do with the badge or the rating.

"That Others May Zoom"

Eclipse

Just for snicks I took a look again at the SARTech Certification.

All I have to say is, you've got to be kidding me.

I agree, NHQ needs to go to NASAR, draw straight lines between GT and SARTech, buy NASAR coffee, and thank them for their time.

This is >clearly<, intended for adhoc members of the general public who want to get involved in SAR and are not part of a structured,
recognized agency or organization with a full training program.  Makes sense, no issue, but to expect us to "recertify" on the exact same stuff, just because some private association has good lobbyists smacks of FWA.

"That Others May Zoom"

C/Awesomenesss

Quote from: Eclipse on August 31, 2013, 03:14:35 AM
Just for snicks I took a look again at the SARTech Certification.

All I have to say is, you've got to be kidding me.

I agree, NHQ needs to go to NASAR, draw straight lines between GT and SARTech, buy NASAR coffee, and thank them for their time.

This is >clearly<, intended for adhoc members of the general public who want to get involved in SAR and are not part of a structured,
recognized agency or organization with a full training program.  Makes sense, no issue, but to expect us to "recertify" on the exact same stuff, just because some private association has good lobbyists smacks of FWA.

Ya buddy!!!!!

a2capt

So:

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:
Quote- Be affiliated with a recognized government entity, for example, a Sheri ff's Office, the Civil Air Patrol (CAP), or the Arizona Division of Emergency Management (ADEM).
Yup.
Quote- Pass a basic background check.
CAP does that. 
Quote- Complete a 2-day "Introduction to Arizona Search and Rescue" course, or equivalent, conducted by members of the Arizona Search and Rescue Coordinators Association.
Two day course. I wonder if you took the curriculum and held it up to the light.. how much would for all intents, be the same.  Though they recognize various government agencies, I can't believe they would figure that the Sheriff's office would train people at subpar standards.
Quote- Complete an OSHA course on Bloodborne Pathogens and Body Substance Isolation Procedures, and renew it annually.
So they're requiring a current First Aid Course, with Bloodborne Pathogens.
Quote- Be equipped to stay in the field for 24 hours without support.
We have that.

I agree. Sounds like control freak syndrome, and channeling revenue to a private organization.

PA Guy

Folks are right the state of AZ does not control the requirements/ratings within CAP.  However I detect a sentiment on this thread that is all too familiar.  We are the pros from Dover so we shouldn't be subject to the AZ law that applies to every SAR organization in the state. We still don't play well with others then wonder why we aren't called.

Any certification agency such as NASAR, American Heart, Mountain Rescue Assoc. etc. are all money making operations but we need their blessings in order to have credibility in the SAR community and a place in the sandbox.  We should approach this as team players.

Yes, AZWG needs a supplement for the internal CAP issues but just once can't we try to get along with the other SAR players.  We need them much more than they need us especially in Ground Ops.

wuzafuzz

I believe a variety of states have some requirements to "play."  Some are more involved than others.  CAP members are subject to state laws if they want a chance to use their skills.  Failure to comply relegates ES ratings (in that jurisdiction) to merit badge status.

Don't like it?  Ask your legislative squadron to help ease the pain.  Or, as someone else mentioned, get CAP to work with the organizations setting standards and recognize our training were appropriate.  Right or wrong, resource typing, standards, and accreditation are an increasing trend in many disciplines.

Having said all that, making noise over trivial requirements will not look good. Spend your time wisely.

Another part of this equation is being a known quantity to local ES managers. They are typically aware of "industry standard" terminology (at least in my experience). They know what a CERT team is, but have no clue what a CAP GTM3 or GES person can do.  We can work to market CAP and explain all the differences. Or we can make it easier by talking the same language.

We still need to train up and perform at or above standards. Pencil whipped ground teams won't impress anyone, whether we speak the same lingo or not.

"You can't stop the signal, Mal."

Phil Hirons, Jr.

Quote from: CAPR 60-3 Opening para
...Practices, procedures, and standards prescribed in this regulation are mandatory and may not be supplemented or changed locally without the prior approval of NHQ CAP/DO. ...

Quote from: CAPR 60-3 para 1-2
Supplements and Waivers. Supplements to this regulation cannot be issued below the wing level (except Congressional Squadron) and require region commander, NHQ CAP/DO, and CAP-USAF/XO approval. Requests for waivers or supplements must be submitted via chain of command to the CAP and CAP-USAF region commanders and then to NHQ CAP/DO for further consideration.

These are the rules and if you think you need different rules these are the hoops to jump thru.

CAPR 60-3, CHAPTER 2 – OPERATIONAL SPECIALTY RATINGS/PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, goes into great detail on how you qualify to be an {fill in the blank} according to CAP. So if it says you need to do A thru Q to become a CAP GTM3, that's the sum total of the requirements unless the hoops referenced above have been jumped thru.

Congratulations you are now a CAP qualified GTM. Now let us turn the operations section of the rules (aka CAPR 60-3).

Quote from: CAPR 60-3 para 1-17
Ground Operations. Ground teams may be used in virtually all phases of a mission. Ground operations are governed by state and local laws as well as by CAP regulations and policies.

Now this raises an interesting question. If AFRCC assigns a missing aircraft / ELT search to AZWG what applies? AZWG is on a AFAM and is acting as the Air Force Aux (Aux ON). Does the AZ Search and Rescue Manual apply? I don't know. Sounds like a conversation for the AZWG/CC and his JA to have. If AZWG needs ground team assistance from neighboring wings, can they assist?

If AZWG is asked to provide assistance to the {insert county here} Sheriff for a missing person search then clearly we need to play by AZ rules.

Quote from: CAPR 60-3 para 1-17 b
The ground branch director is responsible for ensuring the safety of all ground operations. Team capabilities and limitations must be carefully reviewed to verify their suitability for mission assignments.

I would take that to be compliance with state and local laws.

To sum it all up (IMHO)
Meet all the requirements for GTM (including additional ones in approved supplements) you are a CAP GTM (wear the badge)

Participate in a state that has additional requirements for GSAR, the GBD needs to see proof of your meeting those requirements or you don't go.


Private Investigator

Quote from: PA Guy on August 31, 2013, 01:07:51 AM
OK, I'm confused.

If I move to AZWG I can keep my CAP GTL rating but if I want to participate in SAR I must also complete the AZ state requirements?


At one time if you moved to a certain Wing, the Wing CC and DO wanted to "recertify" your GTL status. Just because you was a GTL for the Petticoat Junction Senior SQ did not qualify you to be a GTL there.   ???

Eclipse

#64
Quote from: phirons on August 31, 2013, 04:09:07 PM
To sum it all up (IMHO)
Meet all the requirements for GTM (including additional ones in approved supplements) you are a CAP GTM (wear the badge)

Participate in a state that has additional requirements for GSAR, the GBD needs to see proof of your meeting those requirements or you don't go.

Yep - which means a Wing ESO has no reason or authority to bounce the qual based solely on the SARTech or any other alleged state requirement.
(Did anyone else notice that term isn't used in any of the quoted verbiage?)

And, this is important, that Wing ESO is going to need an entire subsystem, specific to that wing and accepted by the state of Arizona, to track
the compliance with their state law.

"That Others May Zoom"

Phil Hirons, Jr.

Quote from: Private Investigator on August 31, 2013, 04:15:20 PM
Quote from: PA Guy on August 31, 2013, 01:07:51 AM
OK, I'm confused.

If I move to AZWG I can keep my CAP GTL rating but if I want to participate in SAR I must also complete the AZ state requirements?


At one time if you moved to a certain Wing, the Wing CC and DO wanted to "recertify" your GTL status. Just because you was a GTL for the Petticoat Junction Senior SQ did not qualify you to be a GTL there.   ???

Still the case to transfer wings and keep an IC rating (Wing CC approval)

Eclipse

Quote from: Private Investigator on August 31, 2013, 04:15:20 PM
Quote from: PA Guy on August 31, 2013, 01:07:51 AM
OK, I'm confused.

If I move to AZWG I can keep my CAP GTL rating but if I want to participate in SAR I must also complete the AZ state requirements?


At one time if you moved to a certain Wing, the Wing CC and DO wanted to "recertify" your GTL status. Just because you was a GTL for the Petticoat Junction Senior SQ did not qualify you to be a GTL there.   ???

CAPR 60-3, Dec 2012 Page 29
2-6. Transfers From Other Wings. Specialty qualification ratings issued in one wing or
region will normally be transferred to another wing (or region) without the need for the member
to re-accomplish the entire initial training program for various specialty ratings.

a. The transferring member must contact the new wing (or higher unit) and provide
copies of his or her emergency services records to the member's unit of assignment. Electronic
records will automatically be transferred once a member's transfer request is processed by
national headquarters. When a member transfers to a new wing he or she may have to
accomplish additional training to remain qualified based on approved supplements
to this
regulation in the new wing.


So this says to me that unless you have an approved supplement, ratings should transfer without comment
(and as a matter of practical fact, they will), and if your wing does have a supplement, then the
requal or training should be related to the supplement, not a general erasure of ratings.

As noted, by reg, IC quals do not transfer.

"That Others May Zoom"

sardak

QuoteAny certification agency such as NASAR, American Heart, Mountain Rescue Assoc. etc. are all money making operations
Really? then you left CAP off the list of money making operations.

Here are my memberships:
Civil Air Patrol 501(c)3 - personal dues (my wing) $62/year, organization receives money from many states, federal money to the tune of $30 million give or take. 60,000 members.

NASAR 501(c)3 - personal dues $54/year, , SAR organization dues $165/yr, NASAR receives no money from states, receives no federal money, NASAR charges fixed fees for certifications and classes.  Instructors can personally charge the students whatever they're willing to pay. A few thousand members. SAR Tech certification does not require taking any NASAR classes.

Mountain Rescue Association 501(c)3 - personal dues $0/year, organization receives no money from states and no federal money. Accredits only teams, not individuals, charges $0 for the accreditations, which teams must go through every 5 years. Team dues are $5/member with both fixed minimum and maximum team dues since team sizes vary. 76 SAR teams, 19 ex-officio government organizations

Check their annual financial reports to see how "money making" NASAR and MRA are.

Mike

PA Guy

Quote from: sardak on August 31, 2013, 06:02:39 PM
QuoteAny certification agency such as NASAR, American Heart, Mountain Rescue Assoc. etc. are all money making operations
Really? then you left CAP off the list of money making operations.

Here are my memberships:
Civil Air Patrol 501(c)3 - personal dues (my wing) $62/year, organization receives money from many states, federal money to the tune of $30 million give or take. 60,000 members.

NASAR 501(c)3 - personal dues $54/year, , SAR organization dues $165/yr, NASAR receives no money from states, receives no federal money, NASAR charges fixed fees for certifications and classes.  Instructors can personally charge the students whatever they're willing to pay. A few thousand members. SAR Tech certification does not require taking any NASAR classes.

Mountain Rescue Association 501(c)3 - personal dues $0/year, organization receives no money from states and no federal money. Accredits only teams, not individuals, charges $0 for the accreditations, which teams must go through every 5 years. Team dues are $5/member with both fixed minimum and maximum team dues since team sizes vary. 76 SAR teams, 19 ex-officio government organizations

Check their annual financial reports to see how "money making" NASAR and MRA are.

Mike

Well, I hope you feel better now that you have got that off your chest.

The point I was trying to make, apparently not too well, was that all certification agencies/groups have to charge to meet at least their overhead. Obviously some do a better job than others. I was not picking on either NASAR or MRA they just came to mind as related to SAR.

Eclipse

Interestingly, NASAR is considering lowering their certification and membership costs because of shrinking revenues.

"That Others May Zoom"

AZWGSAR

Good Morning ES/GT Enthusiasts;

Let me shed some light on the discussion of the Arizona Wing Ground Team Member requirements.  As the AZWG SAR Officer and Director Of Ground Operations I feel I am probably qualified to provide some accurate information.

First - To the contributor who raised the issue of a members GTM3 qualifications being delayed.  This is a personnel issue.  Approval is pending verification of some of the information on the SQTR.  The process is pending the member providing the information.  I caution members about creating dissension over issues when they are not directly involved, and do not possess accurate information.   Problems are easily solved when the accurate information is known.

The Arizona Wing has very robust and award winning Ground SAR program.  We are always actively recruiting members, especially senior members.  AZWG GTMs meet and train regularly and everyone is welcome. 

The State Of Arizona requires all SAR volunteers (including CAP) to complete the Arizona Basic SAR Academy in order to be deployable as a SAR volunteer in Arizona, and to be covered by State Workers Compensation Insurance.  The SAR Academy is free and is offered at various locations around the state on a regular basis.  AZWG sends active GTMs to the State SAR Academy regularly.

As has been stated by others, CAP is not the lead SAR agency.  We support other agencies who call on us for resources.  The lead SAR agencies; being Sheriff's, Emergency Management, etc; are our customers.  In Arizona we have made the commitment to our customers to provide them with the highest quality SAR Team that we can possibly field.  It is a priority goal of the AZWG ES program to be interoperable with our customers.  As such, we strongly encourage our GTMs to attain professional qualifications such as SARTECH II, WFR, MLPI, National SAR School, etc; and to regularly participate in the State SAR Conference and other agencies training. 

This professional development is voluntary and is in addition to CAP GTM qualifications.  AZWG has no additional requirements for members to be awarded any GTM rating.

The Arizona Wing Ground Team Program is very active, highly visible, and user friendly.  We are always seeking quality, professional members who want to excel at providing SAR services for the State of Arizona.  i invite anyone with questions to contact me, or any AZWG Ground Team Leader for information.

Thanks for the opportunity to clear the air.  I hope to hear from some potential new GT folks.

Thanks


Eclipse

Quote from: AZWGSAR on August 31, 2013, 06:31:39 PMFirst - To the contributor who raised the issue of a members GTM3 qualifications being delayed.  This is a personnel issue.  Approval is pending verification of some of the information on the SQTR.  The process is pending the member providing the information.  I caution members about creating dissension over issues when they are not directly involved, and do not possess accurate information.   Problems are easily solved when the accurate information is known.

What needs to be "verified"?  OPS Quals is electronically validated and approved end-to-end now.

"That Others May Zoom"

Luis R. Ramos

#72
Second issue:

Quote

From AZWGSAR:

This professional development is voluntary and is in addition to CAP GTM qualifications.  AZWG has no additional requirements for members to be awarded any GTM rating.


If members qualified under CAP regulations are not allowed to participate in SAR without this professional development, the PD itself is not voluntary, it is mandated.

This issue is skirted very well by AZWGSAR. It should not have been. This is where the readers are upset. AZ Wing staff has accepted this, tacitly, and apparently decided to ignore an NHQ requirement - to have an ES supplement covering the issue. I could not find any online, among the many, many, many Arizona Wing documents and forms online or under revision. Are there any, or are there not?

Flyer
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer

Eclipse

#73
I stand corrected.  This is clearly an important activity, especially for already rated and qualified CAP ground team members, and
is obviously in >no way< intended for the general public who are not members of organized agencies with structured training
and qualifications programs.  I will go even further to say that it clear why the Legislative officers haven't tried to have the law changed
to take into account people who already have training and qualifications from a nationally recognized organization with a structured training program.

http://www.azwg.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=406:cap-members-complete-sar-training&catid=1:latest-news


"On a cloudy, drizzly weekend, the 26th and 27th of January, the Arizona Basic Search and Rescue Academy was hosted at the Maricopa County Sheriff's Training Center.  Nine CAP Search and Rescue personnel were students in this course.

The weekend training provided a new perspective on ground team policies and procedures to not only new personnel, but also the veteran members.  An updated Arizona State Search and Rescue manual was introduced which covered multiple topics primarily applicable to the Arizona environment.

Several agencies and Sheriff's Posses participated in this event, including High Desert SAR Posse, DSU Posse, Communications Posse, Dares Posse, Aviation Rangers Posse, Pinal County Posse, the Mountain Rescue team, and our own Civil Air Patrol Arizona Wing Ground Team, with members from Deer Valley, Glendale, Falcon, and Williams Gateway Squadrons.

The first day was composed of

intensely concentrated training.  Deputy Sheriff Jesse Robinson taught us how Search and Rescue is organized in Arizona, emphasizing the importance of proper implementation of the Incident Command System, a FEMA protocol used nationwide to provide a way for multiple agencies to efficiently combine resources.  From SAR Trainer Robby Houle, we learned proper searching techniques and the variety of resources each mission has available.

The instructors also described the prerequisites for volunteers and gave insight on how to compile a basic, required survival pack.

There was almost an emergency situation halfway through the first day.  Several students nearly fell victim to a condition I had only heard rumors of but had never before witnessed: "Death by PowerPoint."  Fortunately, the instructor recognized the symptoms; glazed eyes, a hypnotic stare, or eyes closed in the final resting stages of "meditation" which occur just prior to falling off of one's chair... A short break to walk around and stretch out the muscles saved the day!

With all 72 attendees ready for more training from the staff, the second day of the course covered many vital search topics, including personal and team care, local desert hazards, identifying search areas, and using a compass.   Ransom Anderson, from the Desert Search Unit, walked us through the process of distinguishing a footprint from the surroundings and from other prints.  We were also taught how to use a compass to find one's own location on a map.

The weekend concluded with an outdoor exercise on locating clues as part of a search line, followed by a missing person simulation that allowed us to practice our tracking skills by spotting the "subject's" footprints and signs that he had been there.  Although the trail went cold, our Ground Team's searchers did find a black chicken that might or might not have belonged to the subject.

The Arizona Basic Search and Rescue Academy is a state requirement for all SAR volunteers (including CAP).  The SAR Academy provides an essential sharpening tool that will hone your skills and make you a more valuable Ground Team member.  My own participation in this activity is directly thanks to the efforts of Lt Col "Fritz" Seifritz and Maj David Gregor who are my mentors in SAR training.  Keep your eyes open for the next training opportunity!"


"That Others May Zoom"

Luis R. Ramos

#74
Aha!

I will run now to suggest NHQ include all those items underlined in Eclipse's message in CAP's future SQTRs for Ground Teams.

::)

Wait, NHQ already includes those items now, and they have been included for a long time! So basically this school is just a refresher taught by different people...

???

Flyer
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer

abdsp51

Quote from: AZWGSAR on August 31, 2013, 06:31:39 PM
Good Morning ES/GT Enthusiasts;

Let me shed some light on the discussion of the Arizona Wing Ground Team Member requirements.  As the AZWG SAR Officer and Director Of Ground Operations I feel I am probably qualified to provide some accurate information.

First - To the contributor who raised the issue of a members GTM3 qualifications being delayed.  This is a personnel issue.  Approval is pending verification of some of the information on the SQTR.  The process is pending the member providing the information.  I caution members about creating dissension over issues when they are not directly involved, and do not possess accurate information.   Problems are easily solved when the accurate information is known.

The State Of Arizona requires all SAR volunteers (including CAP) to complete the Arizona Basic SAR Academy in order to be deployable as a SAR volunteer in Arizona, and to be covered by State Workers Compensation Insurance.  The SAR Academy is free and is offered at various locations around the state on a regular basis.  AZWG sends active GTMs to the State SAR Academy regularly.


This professional development is voluntary and is in addition to CAP GTM qualifications.  AZWG has no additional requirements for members to be awarded any GTM rating.

Thanks for the opportunity to clear the air.  I hope to hear from some potential new GT folks.

Thanks

Sir,

I will call BS on all the bolded parts.  The member met the organization's requirements for his GT rating and learned it would not be approved until he had SARTECH.  SARTECH or SAR academy may be free but there is a fee for the cert test which is close to a hundred bucks.  Since I have been a member of this wing I have not heard one positive thing about the wings GT or ES ops outside of the aircrew.

BLUF by your own admission that the SARTECH and SAR academy are not required for a GT rating then approve or deny the paperwork provide solid justification for any denial.  This member has already given up on doing GT and this just provides more reason for me to not support or encourage membership to participate.

a2capt

#76
Couple of things, interestingly, "AZWG SAR Officer and Director Of Ground Operations". Two positions, neither of which are on a standard org chart. Or on the Wing Staff listed online.

Reading that article written by the cadet on the Wing website, at least to me, I sense a bit of bashing the activity, as a waste of time, etc. Not quite the impression I would want to give off as a peer organization, of a training session that was put on. Perhaps it's reading the Eclipsed version with the highlighted sections.. :)

Otherwise, reading that it sure does sound pretty much like the same kind of training that is standardized across our whole organization.

So much that perhaps our organization should realize that and maybe go to bat for it's members and say "hey, you know.. we do all that, but we can see where you're coming from.. but since we do all that, how about we call it a day?"

Oh, but some revenue channel would be so upset.

Sigh..

Politics and Gob Networks.

Of course, I could be full of it, I don't like live in AZ anymore, it's been years. I didn't know what CAP was, when I was there. But if all I have to go on is that article on the Wing site, and the other requirements text posted here, I'd say this is a great example of GoB networking keeping the inner circle .. small.   But that's just me.


EDIT: One word change as annotated above.

RiverAux

I would quibble a bit about the description of the NASAR SARTECH certification as "professional development".  It is just a certification sponsored by another agency and is no more and no less a certification than CAP's various GT quals.  Granted, it is much more familiar to folks in the SAR field than ours, but it isn't any more professional. 

Luis R. Ramos

The same comments apply to Arizona's Wing staff describing the state Search and Rescue academy as "voluntary PD." The comments of the class, which was reproduced by Eclipse is the same preparation that our Ground Teams take tobe qualified for ground teams. The difference is that it is given by an Arizona  Search and Rescue group.

Flyer
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer