Cadet Medics

[bosshawk]

I hesitate to get into this discussion, but you guys have once again reinforced an old saying: "somebody told me" are among the most dangerous words in the English language.

[Storm Chaser]

I've seen members assigned as "medics" in a GT; usually the member with the most amount of medical/first aid training or experience. This is, obviously, not a CAP requirement.

But in cases in which victims may be encountered, it doesn't hurt having someone with experience leading any emergency first aid effort, until medical professionals arrive at the scene. While ultimate responsibility continues to fall on the GTL, it could be useful to have someone with more training, experience or qualifications (e.g. EMT, paramedic, nurse) assuming this role.

Should we call this person medic? Maybe not; especially if the member is not an EMT, paramedic, etc. Can cadets perform this role? Sure they can, if they have the proper training.

[lordmonar]

There is nothing wrong with parsing out the duties and responsibilities of the team.

The Radio Operator is not a GT position....but hand one guy the radio....Hey....You're the RTO.
Hand another guy the Team First Aid Kit.....hey....You're the Medic.
Hand the GPS and map to another guy....hey....you're the navigator.

[SJFedor]

One more question pertaining to medical. Are the QuikClot bandages a good idea for CAP?

No.

Use the search function for "quikclot", and youll see we had a decent discussion about it. I think it was in a topic about cadets in an active shooter incident.

Bandaids of various sizes are about as far as you should be taking it.

[Critical AOA]

There is nothing wrong with parsing out the duties and responsibilities of the team.

The Radio Operator is not a GT position....but hand one guy the radio....Hey....You're the RTO.
Hand another guy the Team First Aid Kit.....hey....You're the Medic.
Hand the GPS and map to another guy....hey....you're the navigator.

Oh sure, bring some common sense into it.

[lordmonar]

There is nothing wrong with parsing out the duties and responsibilities of the team.

The Radio Operator is not a GT position....but hand one guy the radio....Hey....You're the RTO.
Hand another guy the Team First Aid Kit.....hey....You're the Medic.
Hand the GPS and map to another guy....hey....you're the navigator.

Oh sure, bring some common sense into it.

That's why they made me an NCO! 

[Luis R. Ramos]

Lord-

You forgot another position...

Hand another guy the log and you are the Recorder.

Flyer

[Brad]

There is nothing wrong with parsing out the duties and responsibilities of the team.

The Radio Operator is not a GT position....but hand one guy the radio....Hey....You're the RTO.
Hand another guy the Team First Aid Kit.....hey....You're the Medic.
Hand the GPS and map to another guy....hey....you're the navigator.

Yea except given the choice the radio operator should have MRO or MRO-T on his 101 card.

[lordmonar]

There is nothing wrong with parsing out the duties and responsibilities of the team.

The Radio Operator is not a GT position....but hand one guy the radio....Hey....You're the RTO.
Hand another guy the Team First Aid Kit.....hey....You're the Medic.
Hand the GPS and map to another guy....hey....you're the navigator.

Yea except given the choice the radio operator should have MRO or MRO-T on his 101 card.

NopE.....not necessary, not needed, not desired......just needs his ICUT and his GT radio tasks completed or in training.

[Brad]

There is nothing wrong with parsing out the duties and responsibilities of the team.

The Radio Operator is not a GT position....but hand one guy the radio....Hey....You're the RTO.
Hand another guy the Team First Aid Kit.....hey....You're the Medic.
Hand the GPS and map to another guy....hey....you're the navigator.

Yea except given the choice the radio operator should have MRO or MRO-T on his 101 card.

NopE.....not necessary, not needed, not desired......just needs his ICUT and his GT radio tasks completed or in training.

Never said it was required, just that given the choice I would go with someone who's MRO qualified, namely because all GTM asks for radio tasks is BCUT/ACUT or ICUT and one or two extra tasks that are covered in BCUT/ACUT and ICUT anyway. MRO adds items such as selecting an ideal communications site (hill, etc.), and how to report a find properly. Sure those things are mentioned in BCUT/ACUT and ICUT, but not specifically looked at in detail, whereas MRO does, but still doesn't overload with theory such as VHF ducting, line of sight formula, blah blah blah (which for that matter none of our current Comms training does).

Trust me, I can speak of this from experience. I was giving a radio overview module at an encampment one year out in the field. While I was doing that the cadets were being rotated from module to module and I was serving as simulated "mission base" for the cadets out in the woods doing missing person search. In the middle of my lecture I get this:

"Mission Base, this is Missing Person Team 1, over."

"Missing Person Team 1, Mission base go ahead, over."

"We've found the body, he's dead, over."

*facepalm-worthy moment of silence*

"Roger have you been through my radio course yet? Over."

"Negative, over."

"Roger, come by as soon as you can, mission base out."

Yea.....

[Garibaldi]

There is nothing wrong with parsing out the duties and responsibilities of the team.

The Radio Operator is not a GT position....but hand one guy the radio....Hey....You're the RTO.
Hand another guy the Team First Aid Kit.....hey....You're the Medic.
Hand the GPS and map to another guy....hey....you're the navigator.

Yea except given the choice the radio operator should have MRO or MRO-T on his 101 card.

NopE.....not necessary, not needed, not desired......just needs his ICUT and his GT radio tasks completed or in training.

Never said it was required, just that given the choice I would go with someone who's MRO qualified, namely because all GTM asks for radio tasks is BCUT/ACUT or ICUT and one or two extra tasks that are covered in BCUT/ACUT and ICUT anyway. MRO adds items such as selecting an ideal communications site (hill, etc.), and how to report a find properly. Sure those things are mentioned in BCUT/ACUT and ICUT, but not specifically looked at in detail, whereas MRO does, but still doesn't overload with theory such as VHF ducting, line of sight formula, blah blah blah (which for that matter none of our current Comms training does).

Trust me, I can speak of this from experience. I was giving a radio overview module at an encampment one year out in the field. While I was doing that the cadets were being rotated from module to module and I was serving as simulated "mission base" for the cadets out in the woods doing missing person search. In the middle of my lecture I get this:

"Mission Base, this is Missing Person Team 1, over."

"Missing Person Team 1, Mission base go ahead, over."

"We've found the body, he's dead, over."

*facepalm-worthy moment of silence*

"Roger have you been through my radio course yet? Over."

"Negative, over."

"Roger, come by as soon as you can, mission base out."

Yea.....

You forgot the dreaded end line. "Roger, Wilco. Over and out."

[lordmonar]

Brad......I don't see what is wrong with your radio comm scenario.    How else are you supposed to say it?

[jeders]

Brad......I don't see what is wrong with your radio comm scenario.    How else are you supposed to say it?

I agree, generally; especially since we're supposed to use plain language. However, if it were a real mission, it would be better to say something like, "Objective found, will contact mission base by telephone to discuss results."

[Critical AOA]

Target is Tango Uniform.

[sardak]

Contrary to popular belief, NIMS has never required the use of plain language except in inter-agency incidents with common comms. While plain language is encouraged in all incidents, intra-agency comms don't have to use plain language. Do a search on NIMS plain language.

What's wrong with the example? The find report could have been less blunt, without the shock value, since there could be family present at the base, command post or wherever, and to a (much) lesser concern, the listening media.  There are plenty of ways to say it without the need for secret codes, or god-forbid, CAP encryption. Of course, it takes a couple of moments to think about what to say, instead of immediately coming on the radio and announcing the find. Nothing's going to change in the next couple of minutes.

My favorite "Is Quincy in base?"

Mike

[Brad]

Contrary to popular belief, NIMS has never required the use of plain language except in inter-agency incidents with common comms. While plain language is encouraged in all incidents, intra-agency comms don't have to use plain language. Do a search on NIMS plain language.

What's wrong with the example? The find report could have been less blunt, without the shock value, since there could be family present at the base, command post or wherever, and to a (much) lesser concern, the listening media.  There are plenty of ways to say it without the need for secret codes, or god-forbid, CAP encryption. Of course, it takes a couple of moments to think about what to say, instead of immediately coming on the radio and announcing the find. Nothing's going to change in the next couple of minutes.

My favorite "Is Quincy in base?"

Mike

Based on how you read it you're still potentially violating 100-3 1-7a:

a. Codes and Ciphers. Locally designed codes or adaptation of official codes, however well intentioned, will not deceive a cryptanalyst; only officially authorized codes are to be used. It has become a practice within CAP to assign "code words" to various mission events, in the belief that doing so will conceal these events from an undesired listener. This practice is seldom effective, violates the principles of the Incident Command System and is therefore not authorized.

My suggestion? Like jeders said, a phone call. Can't tell you how many times we've had nosy wrecker drivers at work call us with their scanners going asking why we didn't call them for the wreck in their area (because they had a request for a specific wrecker that wasn't you and you missed that transmission...) or if it's a big event, the news media calls up with THEIR scanners going trying to get us to give out information! Sorry, call the CRO (Community Relations Officer, aka PAO).

So yea, "We found the body, he's dead!" Big no-no, you never know who's listening. For all you know, the father of the lost hiker kid is a ham who's got his radio scanning trying to contact his son out in the woods carrying a radio as well, and he scans past our frequency and hears that?! Yea, not good...

[lordmonar]

Brad......I don't see what is wrong with your radio comm scenario.    How else are you supposed to say it?

I agree, generally; especially since we're supposed to use plain language. However, if it were a real mission, it would be better to say something like, "Objective found, will contact mission base by telephone to discuss results."

If you have phones.......why use the radios in the first place? 

[lordmonar]

Contrary to popular belief, NIMS has never required the use of plain language except in inter-agency incidents with common comms. While plain language is encouraged in all incidents, intra-agency comms don't have to use plain language. Do a search on NIMS plain language.

Practice like you play.   If Inter-agency comms are to be plain text.....then your Intra-agency comms should be too.......or else you are going to get someone saying "We have a signal 69 at this 20".

That said....NIMS may not require plain language....but CAP regs and doctrine does require it.

What's wrong with the example? The find report could have been less blunt, without the shock value, since there could be family present at the base, command post or wherever, and to a (much) lesser concern, the listening media.  There are plenty of ways to say it without the need for secret codes, or god-forbid, CAP encryption. Of course, it takes a couple of moments to think about what to say, instead of immediately coming on the radio and announcing the find. Nothing's going to change in the next couple of minutes.

My favorite "Is Quincy in base?"

Mike

Mike....I don't tailor my comms to ease the sensitivity of who "might" me listening.  I accept as a given....any comms I make on un-encrypted networks not only could be intercepted but ARE intercepted. 

And Yes....personally I would not be that blunt...."Mission Base, Ground Team 1,  Search Objective Located, Request County Sherriff dispatched to location, no need for EMS" would be a little better.....but we are not fooling anyone......if the family is camped out in the comm room (we need to fire the IC< PAO and Chaplain) they know what that means......any eavesdroppers out there can figure it out.

If we want develop some sort of PROWORDS/Protocol/Code words to report casualties.......then they would have to be published and trained to everyone....which means that anyone who cared (media, radio monitors, etc.) can get access to it and again we are not fooling anyone.

[sardak]

Patrick, we agree...

That said....NIMS may not require plain language....but CAP regs and doctrine does require it.

And note that I wasn't advocating using codes

There are plenty of ways to say it without the need for secret codes

And Yes....personally I would not be that blunt...

which was my point

The find report could have been less blunt,

...almost

but we are not fooling anyone......if the family is camped out in the comm room (we need to fire the IC< PAO and Chaplain) they know what that means

They don't need to be in the comm room, they can be in the base where the ground team is milling around with their radios on. As for others not in the base who are listening on scanners or radios, they aren't my worry or concern, because they're going to hear the message listening to the other responding agencies.

My point, which I believe we all agree on, is that we need to be discreet without using codes.

Mike

[SarDragon]

Brad......I don't see what is wrong with your radio comm scenario.    How else are you supposed to say it?

I agree, generally; especially since we're supposed to use plain language. However, if it were a real mission, it would be better to say something like, "Objective found, will contact mission base by telephone to discuss results."

If you have phones.......why use the radios in the first place? 

Because you can involve more than 2 or 3 people in a conversation at once. The IC can talk to most/all of his assets at one time to pass instructions, and any of those assets can communicate with multiple other assets at one time to coordinate search efforts.