CAP GSAR capability

[RiverAux]

In another thread, one of our distinguished members said this:

I think we're in no way trained or qualified for any kind of GSAR personally, but that's another subject. Anyone can walk a search line with at most 5mins training. Where something more complex is involved, LE will be doing it anyway. We're not a highly qualified specialized SaR force.

I think this is a gross understatment of CAP's GSAR capabilities in relation to lost person in the woods scenarios.  Our GTLs and GTMS are more than capable of participating in such missions and have been given all the knowledge they need to do so.  Anyone wishing to compare CAP's GT training sylabus to what is expected of NASAR SARTECH III, II, and I will see that they are roughly equivalent with the exception of the rope skills.

Now, there are several areas where CAP would generally fall behind in comparison to many county SAR teams, and they primarily relate to the fact that GSAR is currently a small subset of what CAP does while it is the primary focus of the local teams.  In general, because of that fact, we do not practice these skills as teams nearly as much as they seem to do and when we do, probably use much less complicated scenarios. 

The other area where we lack is that our Ground Branch Directors are definetely not really prepared to serve in that capacity on a lost-person search and we don't really have the training tasks required for them to be.  However, seeing as how CAP is not going to be the lead agency on such searches, I'm not really sure it is that necessary to traing our GSAR folks at that level (at least in relation to lost person searches). 

But, if all we're doing is comparing a CAP ground team to a NASAR-qualified team or just a local team with no NASAR qualifications in their ability to participate in a non-technical search for a lost person, I think we would rate very well. 

Now, some of this may change as we get deeper into the national standards program.  I have a hard time NASAR is going to maintain their monopoly on certification and that at some point there will be a non-NASAR national credentialling system.  Should that happen, CAP will be on the same playing field and what differences there are now, will lessen or disappear. 

And by the way, most LE folks aren't going to have all that much, if any, training in leading or participating in lost person searches either.   Heck, the local sheriff may not even have any law enforcement training, much less SAR. 

[Eclipse]

The other area where we lack is that our Ground Branch Directors are definitely not really prepared to serve in that capacity on a lost-person search and we don't really have the training tasks required for them to be.   

Unless you are speaking for yourself, you're going to need to be more specific on why.

[JayT]

The other area where we lack is that our Ground Branch Directors are definitely not really prepared to serve in that capacity on a lost-person search and we don't really have the training tasks required for them to be.   

Unless you are speaking for yourself, you're going to need to be more specific on why.

Speaking for myself, it seems to me that CAP doesn't really.........understand.......how to play within ICS. To often, we treat ICS as a single agency tool, when it's not.

Can you really take a CAP GBD and stick them with a team from another organization? Could you take a CAP team and stick them under another organization? Could a CAP 'IC' really operate as an IC for a large multi agency response? If one of my bosses was an IC at an incident, he/she would take a dim view of some CAP guy calling up and introducing themselves as the 'CAP IC.'

I think CAP should do away with our own training all together, and go to the SARTECH and what not standards.

[RiverAux]

The reason CAP GBDs are not really qualified to lead lost person searches is that it just isn't really in our training curriculum.  Take a look at the GT task book and reference text and the GBD training tasks and you will only see minimal attention to the more "strategic" aspects of leading such missions.  We give our GTLs enough information to understand what they're doing, but there is a lot more to missing person SAR mission planning and execution than is in our program.

But, we are very well qualified to participate at the grunt and team leader level in such missions. 

Can you really take a CAP GBD and stick them with a team from another organization? Could you take a CAP team and stick them under another organization? Could a CAP 'IC' really operate as an IC for a large multi agency response? If one of my bosses was an IC at an incident, he/she would take a dim view of some CAP guy calling up and introducing themselves as the 'CAP IC.'

I can't imagine any circumstances where a CAP IC would be the IC for a lost person search, so your statement is moot.  However, a CAP ground team would fit right in with other agencies when doing GSAR and most likely would be some of the best prepared people on scene compared to the untrained volunteers that would be showing up. 

and go to the SARTECH and what not standards.

Say goodbye to all cadet particpation and most senior participation.  You do realize that the online exam for the lowest level of NASAR certification is $50 and that certification costs for the upper levels are even higher?  That you have to buy the textbooks from them?  Why pay for NASAR certification when our own system is comparable and doesn't cost extra money? 

As stated, other than ropework there is very little difference between our standards and NASAR, so there is no real advantage to doing it. 

[IceNine]

Because our SAR training is not recognized as standardized.  Theirs is.

I just had a meeting with my local SAR managers and they were all hesitant to accept anything other than NASAR, or their own training Certifications.

It is a matter of shut up and color for a lot of these people

[sarmed1]

That you have to buy the textbooks from them?

No you dont....only if you are conducting a NASAR sponsored course, you can receive your "training" from anywhere...including CAP (or just read a SAR book and challenge)

SARTECH standard is nothing special really, its just a standard that everyone, usually recognizes, including those that dont do SAR as a regualar job (ie LE, Fire/EMS)

GBD for missing person SAR isnt really that differant from missing AC SAR.  Its a resource managing postion, assign and brief teams to tasks sent to you by planning, based on their ability/capability.  Debrief them as they return and forward the "intel" back to planning.  Dont let anyone get lost of overdue....

mk

[RiverAux]

Because our SAR training is not recognized as standardized.  Theirs is.

I just had a meeting with my local SAR managers and they were all hesitant to accept anything other than NASAR, or their own training Certifications.

It is a matter of shut up and color for a lot of these people

We too have a nationally standardized program that is just as valid.  Heck, there are almost as many people currently qualified under CAP's standards as have ever been qualified under NASAR.  We have 3-4 times as many members who specialize in GSAR than NASAR does.  If there is another volunteer organization with GSAR capabilities on a national scale bigger than us, I haven't heard about it. 

[FlyingTerp]

That you have to buy the textbooks from them?

No you dont....only if you are conducting a NASAR sponsored course, you can receive your "training" from anywhere...including CAP (or just read a SAR book and challenge)

I challenged the SARTECH III exam using only CAP training and references.  Passed it, no problem.  SARTECH III is only a test, no practicals. 

There is an expired MOU between CAP and NASAR. http://www.nasar.org/nasar/downloads/NASARLOA_Final_May_2003_no_sigs.pdf Its disappointing that there is not more of a partnership between the two organizations.   

[IceNine]

Because our SAR training is not recognized as standardized.  Theirs is.

I just had a meeting with my local SAR managers and they were all hesitant to accept anything other than NASAR, or their own training Certifications.

It is a matter of shut up and color for a lot of these people

We too have a nationally standardized program that is just as valid.  Heck, there are almost as many people currently qualified under CAP's standards as have ever been qualified under NASAR.  We have 3-4 times as many members who specialize in GSAR than NASAR does.  If there is another volunteer organization with GSAR capabilities on a national scale bigger than us, I haven't heard about it. 

I doesn't matter how qualified we think/know we are.  Until we (CAP) do some footwork to either (a) get NASAR to recognize our traininig as equivilent (b) push our members to get NASAR qual's.  Then we are just spinning out wheels.

I agree that our training is pretty close to equivilent, it is not however equal because we don't get a card saying we are NASAR Certified.

It is all a matter of perception, everyone knows the vetting process for NASAR Cert's they don't know CAP's. 

So at the end of the day you can try to argue here that CAP is just as good as NASAR, but until you get the rest of the SAR world to recognize that you are pushing a chain.

[RiverAux]

We have gotten far off track here.  The question is does a CAP ground team have the training necessary to participate in a lost person search?  I say yes. 

[IceNine]

Minus rope skilz necessary to search high incline areas absolutely.

Validation you ask?  I sent 2 teams composed of seniors and cadets to look for an elderly alzheimers patient just a few weeks ago.

I had an opportunity to speak with one of the EMA directors w/ whom I've been friends for a long time.  He gave me some very constructive feedback. 

One thing he mentioned was searching high incline areas (like river banks), He also mentioned that our interoperability was sufficient with the exception of our ability to integrate reports and other paperwork type stuff.  Some of the minor things he mentioned was safety equipment, they were surprised that we don't make our people wear knee pads, and glasses.

Positives- He said our people were very professional, knew the job, and found some evidence that one of the EMA team's had missed.

He was also amazed at the fact that we integrate training w/dog search teams into our ground training.  And from what I hear they paired us with dog teams several times for collection, and "cleanup".  And apparently we found quite a few things the dog handlers missed or ignored.

Over all I feel we are sufficiently trained, However my group goes through extra effort to have the training that all of our customers require.  And we do A LOT of foot work ahead of time to clear the air of misnomers with all of the local SAR teams.

[notaNCO forever]

    I think one big problem in C.A.P.'s GSAR training and capabilities, at least in my state, is that you get people that get their qualifications and don't know what their talking about. Then those people precede to "teach" and sign of other people.

[DNall]

I'd really like to participate more extensively in this conversation, but I hope you'll understand why I'm a little busy with other priorities right now.

One quick point though. This may be hard for a lot of people that haven't seen it from my side, but...

As you know, I commissioned in the Army not too long ago. A lot of the training there was a waste of time, but the one really key thing that did matter was small unit leadership & operational planning.

It requires knowing, training, and being proficient in tactics by the baseline soldier. In addition to them having discipline, professionalism, capability, and dedication. That is not the case for CAP GTMs. It is not in general the case for CAP members, nor is it ingrained as part of our organizational structure. I am not in any way arguing for some strict authoritarian military style whatever. I can promise you no such stereotyped system exists anywhere in the military, particularly in the AF, and that includes everything from Marine basic training to Army infantry units. I'm talking about a foundation of dedication, competence by industry standards, and professionalism. Everyone is capable of achieving that, regardless of pay or not & without any more time than CAP members are putting in now.

The other aspect is the leader. It's first of all selective of who gets to even train to be leaders. Then those with the talent to do so are trained. You learn a checkbox form of leadership at the entry level, but it's something almost no one at any level of CAP seems capable of doing. The level of detail & precision with which I'm supposed to expect an NCO squad leader or recently commissioned 2LT to conduct just about every task they do is just non-existent in CAP. I can't tell you how frustrated I get when I hear a CAP briefing & they haven't properly planned for anything or given me a quarter of the information I actually need to go forward & do the mission safely, effectively, and efficiently. You can say the two things are Apples to Oranges, but they absolutely are not. The mission planning task on the GTL SQTR is the exact same 5-paragraph opord format we use in the Army. What it neglects to teach is the 8 troop leading procedures by which that process is formulated & executed, or the planning elements to get there, which makes it worthless. 

My point is that CAP is an outstanding organization with enormous potential. We have some amazing members that can accomplish enormous things. A lot of them get really scared that we're going to overwhelm them when you start talking about higher standards and more intensive training. There's also the fear that we'll run people off while we already have issues with our size & retention. I can tell you flat out that the stuff I'm talking about is incredibly simple. It takes no more time than what we're doing now. Being able to actually operate to standard would increase our mission capabilities 10-fold, and that would bring in & retain more members than you could imagine. I think CAP has greatness deep down inside it, but we have to get past our fears to let it out.

[CadetProgramGuy]

I have taken the GTL, and added a few things gear wise, and then passed the SARTECH II written and practicals.

Yes, once you acheive the GTL level, the written is farily easy.

The practicals will take some time to learn and then be able to show off your skills.

Tracking is not easy, the Land Nav course I was on, was a pain in the buttocks.  Other wise, it's all good.

I say, get the GTL, then on to the SARTECH II.

Somthing also to consider is that on a National level, CAP will have its diffucility due to the "Self Certifying" nature we have of our Ground Teams.  Thats why NASAR is popular, because the National level tells you WHO can certify your people.

[sarmed1]

I think that GSAR is one of those local area specific emphesis missions.  If you arent going to be used as an asset by the local ES establishment, dont spend to much time training into it beyond the tasks that fit into the normal GTM program.

But if you are (or think you will be) then by all means make it the emphesis of your program there are a few areas I would look at (off the top of my head), seek NASAR certification (at least the SARTECH III) for those in the GTM 2 and GTM 1, GTL should strive for SARTECH II. (like mentioned, it lends credability when dealing with outside agencies)  I would also try to meet the DHS reccomended trainnig criteria if possible...ie someone first responder or above, everyone with Hazmat awareness and WMD/Terrorism awareness (both availble as on line classes)  Get someone  to get you the basics of rope work, at least knots, basic rigging and simple hauling/lowering systems (need not rappel)

Some bigger things down the road, make sure you have a compatable radio system with the local SAR units (hint 155.160 is frequently common wilderness SAR frequency) Stokes basket and pataint packaging equipment is the stretcher of choice.  Swift water safety (if you have it in your area)  you should have some basic water safety training and a few PFD's (type III/IV) and a few throw bags available.

mk

[RiverAux]

This recent mission in AL is why I think lost person searches are our only real potential mission growth area --- 37 flight hours and 8 ground sorties over three days -- done as an A-1 AFRCC mission.  There are many, many more of these going on in every state when compared to missing airplane or DR missions, apparently we just have to train the sheriffs in the right way to ask for help. 

http://www.cap.gov/visitors/news/cap_news_online/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&nodeID=6192&newsID=4753&year=2008&month=9

[DNall]

They don't need to be expert in how to request help. They just need to know our capabilities are avail & the point of contact for the local unit. They should be calling that local unit, who then starts putting people on alert standby, while at the same time helping format the request thru NOC. I've seen the same thing happen on redcap missions too.

It's still a small mission. It doesn't happen all that much, and frankly, 37 flight hours is miniscule. For a standard redcap, we're going to run at least 7 aircraft and as many as 15. We're going to run 6-12 sorties per launch, with possibly two sets per day, plus highbird. I'd eat up more than 37hrs on the first launch of day one & get very little coverage out of it. 8 Ground sorties is small time too. I would have 5 teams per day (replacements rotating thru) for the first week at min.

Look, I get hurricanes here, Cali get earthquakes, the north gets snow/flood/fire/etc... each region has its own thing. If somehow none of that happens in your state, well first of all be thankful for that, and sure you can train for other stuff.

I don't know that missing person is the thing though... I mean it's really two categories. There's the highly specialized expert SaR team type - which is wilderness and mountain SaR - and, there's the general giant search line or broke up teams in moderate terrain - for which any volunteer of the street can do that & the agency training is in how to operate search lines, logistics, leadership/mgmt, etc of those masses of untrained people. There isn't a middle ground there where CAP could fit.

I understand we can fly a lot, but helos are MUCH better suited to that mission. To the extent other resources aren't avail or can't be afforded, then sure CAP could try to help, but I'm afraid in most cases we'd just be drawing off resources that would be better used in other ways by other folks.

[RiverAux]

They don't need to be expert in how to request help. They just need to know our capabilities are avail & the point of contact for the local unit.

The evidence arising from recent requests for CAP assistance in both SAR and DR capabilities tells me that we have to tell the sheriffs how to request us in such a way that it will get approved as an AFAM.  I'm not talking about telling them how to game the system, but if they've got a legit request for our help as an AFAM it seems that if they don't use the right buzzwords, the AF will turn it down.     

[DNall]

That's what the word liaison means. You are a translator for the different languages, processes, chains of command, and contacts used on each side of the fence.

1) You as a local ES officer develop tactical working relationships with local agencies - say your county EOC for instance. You exercise with them to display your capabilities, and work to incorporate those capabilities in their operational response plans for certain types of situations that you know we can assist in, while making sure they know where you can't help them.

2) You then act as a liaison to that agency when they need to make a request. Their first call should be to you. You should help them format their request & send it to the appropriate contact - that's generally NOC, but may be forwarded thru a state EMA. Ours is done that way a lot of times, as the state has aviation and other resources & also funds certain local requests for outside support. You may also need to cross-deck with your Wg/CC or director of ES. Whatever the local process is, your job as local liaison is to know it & navigate it for the requestor, or at least hold their hand thru that process.

3) Eventually the request will go to NOC with the requestor signature line on it, and they'll work their process. It'll come back approved or not & that's all there is to it.

As far as terming things so AF will approve them... CAP's job isn't to do everything under the sun just cause a local community needs it done. If that were the case, I'm sure they could use an auxiliary trash pickup crew or dog catchers they don't have to pay. Likewise, the AF has limitations on what is or is not their job. They have a higher purpose than having a big heart. You need to not only respect that, but in many ways emulate it.

[RiverAux]

As far as terming things so AF will approve them... CAP's job isn't to do everything under the sun just cause a local community needs it done.

As I have said in this thread and others, I am talking about totally legit requests for normal CAP missions that should be done as AFAMs, not the sort of crazy stuff you suggest. 

[DNall]

Actually, as I said before, I believe most missing persons cases involve fowl play even if it's not immediately obvious, and the slightest potential for that to be the case should and does preclude AF participation, and likewise should prohibit CAP assistance, just as much as using our volunteers to sweep streets.

I do believe there's an ES mission in support of states. I believe what we can do for local communities is VERY limited - in terms of ES. Our primary impact on communities is thru cadet programs, and potentially AE, but obviously that isn't happening much.

[RiverAux]

Actually, as I said before, I believe most missing persons cases involve fowl play even if it's not immediately obvious, and the slightest potential for that to be the case should and does preclude AF participation, and likewise should prohibit CAP assistance, just as much as using our volunteers to sweep streets.

Missing person cases are not what we're talking about here and you know it.  And lost person cases obviously do not preclude AF participation as referenced by the case I noted above. 

[Eclipse]

I believe what we can do for local communities is VERY limited - in terms of ES.

If you take the time and effort to make the contacts and present legitimate capabilities (and answer the phone when they call), there's plenty of local ES work.

I speak from personal experience to a process which has taken several years to begin showing results, but which is now paying off and feeding itself.

Part of the issue is the short attention span of members presented with difficult long-term goals that require actual work.

Its very easy to sit and complain "we get no missions", but ramping the people and training to present yourself as a legitimate asset is much harder than the complaining.

[RiverAux]

If you take the time and effort to make the contacts and present legitimate capabilities (and answer the phone when they call), there's plenty of local ES work.

You are absolutely right about that.  Though I'm not proud to admit it, when I've been in positions that include such local liasion as one of their responsibilities, I didn't do as much as I should have.  My only excuse is that it is very difficult to do this sort of local government work when you have a full time job, even one with flexible schedules, especially when your AOR includes quite a few counties.  I may consider angling back into one of those jobs in the future and that will be my priority. 

[DNall]

I believe what we can do for local communities is VERY limited - in terms of ES.

If you take the time and effort to make the contacts and present legitimate capabilities (and answer the phone when they call), there's plenty of local ES work.

I speak from personal experience to a process which has taken several years to begin showing results, but which is now paying off and feeding itself.

Part of the issue is the short attention span of members presented with difficult long-term goals that require actual work.

Its very easy to sit and complain "we get no missions", but ramping the people and training to present yourself as a legitimate asset is much harder than the complaining.

Can you give me some examples of what you're talking about?

I don't mind helping those communities, but I don't see a lot of mission there. Most anything that CAP would/could be involved in on any level are overseen by the state. Local EOCs are worried about getting the traffic lights working and utilities restored.

I'd like to build closer relations with the several county EOCs I have coverage for, and they do an annual hurricane exercise in conjunction with the state that I'd like to get a greater role in, but... I'm not real wild about putting my cadets over there to play victims. That's fine & everything, but again anyone can do that, and during an actual emergency that's not what we'd be doing. We need to be more into the planning & operations end of things - at every level.

What we've done lately is fly some county officials to see damage points in the county after Ike. We could do comm support for their agencies, but that wasn't needed.

Really the state is pretty squared away & handles most everything I can think of that CAP would ever want to be involved with below the federal level. So, yeah examples would be great... I am open minded

[Eclipse]

http://www.cap.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&nodeID=6192&newsID=4783

We have also done aerial in support of tornadoes, and ice-damming on rivers, two different ground-based disaster assessment missions post flooding, and a multi-day / multi-state missing persons, this is all within the last year or so, and in addition to the various redcaps, etc., and does not include a number of cooperative training activities we've done or are planning with local agencies.

We have a strong and growing relationship with the ARC in the state and get called by them on a regular basis (mainly shelter ops and DA), and my Group HQ sits on two different SAR councils which has garnered us at least one mission, and access to ICS training.

We are also cultivating several high-level contacts that should bring us more work and resources.

As I say, this has been a multi-year process that requires constant care and feeding, but also can be somewhat self-sustaining once the chain reaction is started.

When people see you are serious, come when called, and can be counted on to bring your own crayons and color, all they generally want is "more".

I had the unfortunate "opportunity" last night to run out of gas in my SUV on the way to a unit meeting.  As it turned out, I was delivering a bunch of equipment for the mobile command trailer my Group is outfitting.  The tow truck driver commented that I had "everything you could need in there except for gas..."

We spoke for a bit on the side of the road, and it turned out he knew a former cadet, from the area.  His impression about CAP had come solely through this young man, who was a good kid, but, well...anyway, he actually stopped by the unit a while later and as fate would have it, two of the unit's members were out working on the trailer.

I understand his impression of CAP was significantly changed around 0130 when he finally left talking about coming back to a meeting and possibly joining.

He has contacts in LE and FD and resources of his own to bring to the table as well (lots of pretty flatbeds you can use to ferry sandbags and people in flooded areas, etc).

This is just one of a growing number of examples where our hard work is starting to pay off, and we are able to take advantage of opportunities when they pop up.

[WVOES]

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

[DNall]

^ I do appreciate that. We're always happy to work with states to meet their requirements and improve ourselves as a SaR responder. At the same time, we have to be focused on a national standard, and getting it implemented for all our members, not just the select few that are able to partake in your training program.

ergo...

Personnel/span-of-control references an org chart, not a training standard.

Those personnel first have to meet the qualification requirements to hold down those posts, and CAP's current minimum standards do not.

That also doesn't address field personnel, which again do not currently meet the standards FEMA is putting out there to standardize to. I realize it's not black & white, but we're not really that close.

You also mentioned "not NASAR, but just as good." I'll trust you on that, BUT... The problem is it's made up internal training that doesn't mean anything to anyone outside. So say WV certifies these people, great. Does that mean anything to TX, or FEMA? You're self-certifying people. Now I need to know your evaluators are certified by an outside standard. Then you're telling other agencies/states/feds to trust your certifications w/ no oversight or standardization.

You see how that can be a problem?

If I'm a US forestry service IC, thinking about risk mgmt when I decide what resources to send out versus unqualified people that get hurt/lost/whatever & I have to put the main search on hold to come take care of them. Why do I take CAP at it's word (or WV) when making that call, especially if I have other options that I KNOW are competent because they have credentials I understand?

Again assuming you're 100% correct & training even above NASAR & all those other requirements... As that outside overall IC, here's CAP offering me teams. Are all CAP teams created equal? Maybe your guys really know their stuff, but that doesn't equate to all CAP teams being competent/capable. How can I as that outside IC tell the difference?

Certainly you can do your own thing inside your state, but that doesn't solve the bigger problem for a nationwide federal response agency like CAP.

[Larry Mangum]

We also need to remember that NASAR is not the end all.  While attending Inland SAR School, the AF Lt Col teaching the class was just as derogatory toward them as he was CAP and non of the County or State SAR Coordinators attending the course seemed to disagree with him. What was more important to them, was that we come as team players and truly be qualified to do what we say we can do. It does not take NASAR certification to do that.

I am a member of the team rewriting CAPR 60-3 and we will be looking closely at the SQTR shortly. If you have good constructive comments please drop me a private email and I will pass them on to the working group. 

BTW, I am not against NASAR certification, just the expense of it.

[_]

I agree that NASAR isn't the ultimate standard, but it's a very good national standard.  On the civilian team I'm a member of we use the NASAR standard.  The other teams in this area don't use NASAR.  The NASAR standard is a good standard and I think it would be good to try to emulate the things included in the NASAR standard.  I also view the testing standards and the way the tests are conducted as being excelent.  The cost and availability of NASAR evaluators makes it difficult to fully endorse CAP going that route.  I do feel that the material covered by NASAR materials should be part of CAP's standard. 

A major thing to watch out for, if CAP tries to adopt the NASAR standard without modification, is the gear list.  Their gear list is worse than ours, and that's saying something.  I put together a complete pack for SARTECH 2 and it ended up weighing around 30 pounds without water.  Whether we change the gear list or not, there needs to be something saying the list can be modified, by adding or removing items, at a local level.

[RiverAux]

I do feel that the material covered by NASAR materials should be part of CAP's standard. 

I haven't found anything significant in NASAR's program that isn't being covered in some fashion by ours other than the rope work.  Given that we are severely restricted from doing any rope-based rescue that stuff is useless to us.  But, if there is something we're lacking in comparison that I missed, I'm for including it in ours. 

[RiverAux]

Big GSAR in PA with major CAP involvement -- http://www.cap.gov/visitors/news/cap_news_online/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&nodeID=6192&newsID=4881&year=2008&month=10

Note that one of the CAP units is developing a canine SAR team in accordance with accepted national standards....

[_]

I do feel that the material covered by NASAR materials should be part of CAP's standard. 

I haven't found anything significant in NASAR's program that isn't being covered in some fashion by ours other than the rope work.  Given that we are severely restricted from doing any rope-based rescue that stuff is useless to us.  But, if there is something we're lacking in comparison that I missed, I'm for including it in ours. 

UTM, types of searches (loose grid, tight grid, etc), tracking, more in depth nav stuff.

Also rescue ops involving ropes does not automatically mean it's high angle.  There is a lot of rope rescue that falls into the world of semi-tech.  Semi-tech is pretty much any time where you can stand on the ground without needing a rope to support you.  In these cases the rope is used to add an extra measure of safety and to make things like moving a stokes easier.  Discounting learning knots and such because we don't do high angle rescue isn't a good reason.  There are plenty of times where we may need to assist in a rescue where knowledge of knots and rope work is needed.

[Tubacap]

Big GSAR in PA with major CAP involvement -- http://www.cap.gov/visitors/news/cap_news_online/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&nodeID=6192&newsID=4881&year=2008&month=10

Note that one of the CAP units is developing a canine SAR team in accordance with accepted national standards....

PAWG just did another GSAR OP almost at the same time with different personnel in another part of the state.  End result was not awesome, but the mission itself ran excessively smoothly and I was never so pleased to work with COORDINATED teams that involved not only CAP personnel, but also the variety of emergent volutneers and fire departments that typically are the bulk of the response to a missing person search.

[DNall]

NASAR cost availability is an issue, and it isn't the only option. However, if CAP were to select NASAR as the best of those options & deliver it via CAP instructors, then it could be doable. We can do our own equiv training if we want too. However, that's just one item on the list. What we need to adopt is the overall list, and a plan to reach it universally for GTM3s across the country. That list looks like this....

Team standards: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/508-8_search_and_rescue_resources.pdf

Individual standards: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/sar_jobtitle_111806.pdf

Specifically:

SAR Job Title 35:  Wilderness Search and/or Rescue Technician
Description:  A Wilderness Search and/or Rescue Technician is a member of a Wilderness SAR Team who searches for and rescues those in trouble in urban/suburban as well as other environments.

REQUISITE CRITERIA
The table below lists minimum requisite criteria, based on existing protocols and standards, for a Wilderness Search and/or Rescue Technician to participate in the NIMS Integration Center's National Emergency Responder Credentialing System.

Category
Criteria
Training

Fulfillment of requirement(s) as stated in the following standard(s):
1. MRA 105 Operational Level; or ASTM F-2209 or NASAR SAR Tech II; or equivalent
2. NFPA 472 HazMat Awareness and/or OSHA 1910.120(Q)(6)(i), HazMat     Awareness Training or equivalent basic instruction on responding to and operating in a CBRNE incident (Online course avail from AFIADL)
3. Bloodborne/Airborne Pathogens per OSHA
4. DOI AM B-3 or equivalent

Completion of the following baseline criteria:
5. OSHA 1910.120 and/or 1910.134(f) Respiratory Protection
6. Risk assessment
7. Hazard mitigation, including lifting, dealing with animals and possible armed subjects and criminals
8. PPE for 4 seasons in any of the anticipated areas of operation
9. Use of related SAR tools and devices
10. Various SAR Standards
11. Legal Aspects of SAR EMS, SAR risk, liability, insurance, and injury and death of members
12. SAR ethics, including dealing with families, confidentiality and media
13. Team and crew safety issues
14. For drivers: Driver's safety
15. Personal and team physical, medical and behavioral wellness, fitness, and limitations
16. Wilderness weather
17. Survival and bivouac in four seasons in any anticipated areas of operations
18. Use of other resources including canines and other animals
19. Recognizing possible child predator situations
20. Awareness for search around swift/flood water, underground spaces
21. HazMat awareness to include drug labs
22. Animal technical rescue awareness
23. Documentation and record keeping for SAR and EMS
24. Field Communications, interoperability, equipment, proper use of phones, radios, data
25. Medical aid of self, team members, and customers
26. Customer evacuations, choices, methods, equipment
27. Helicopter operations in SAR for all seasons in all anticipated areas of   operations,  including;
* Types of Helicopters in SAR
* Risk Continuum: low risk to higher risk helicopter use
* Related FAA regulations
* Personal capabilities and limitations and preflight prep
* Helicopter capabilities and limitations
* Safety Briefing/ Aircraft familiarization, storage, Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) introduction
* Safety rules, dos and don'ts
* Helicopter-related Communications for SAR personnel
* Night operations
* Customers on helicopters, control of, consent issues
* Basic emergency procedures on ground and in flight
* Uses of helicopter adjuncts, such as NVG and FLIR
* Basic physiological effects of flight on personnel, customers and equipment
* Special-Use issues, hazards, and mitigation
* Ingress and egress training and practice in all methods to be used on operations, such as hover ingress-egress, etc.

Completion of the following courses and/or curricula:
27. ICS-100: Introduction to ICS
28. ICS-200: Basic ICS
29. FEMA IS-700: NIMS, An Introduction
30. CERT (G-371) or equivalent for disaster related responses

Experience
1. Finger print and background check
2. Participation in an AHJ currency program

Physical/ Medical Fitness
Completion of the following baseline criteria:
1. Medical requirements established by the AHJ
2. Minimum physical fitness standards as required by the AHJ, such as:
* MRA 105.1 Fitness
* CO WSAR Fitness
* NWCG Pack Test "Arduous"
* MCSOMR/CAMRA Mountain Rescue Specific Physical Ability Test (MRSPAT)
* NIMS WSAR Type II and IV Fitness
3.     CDC/ WHO recommended inoculations

Certification
1. Any of the following or equivalent:
* MRA 105.1 Operational Level
* NASAR SAR Technician II or greater
* Colorado State SAR Board WSAR Technician Type II or greater
* Appropriate equivalent State certification


SAR Job Title 35:  Wilderness Search and/or Rescue Technician

RECOMMENDED CRITERIA
The recommended criteria that follow are intended to supplement previously-listed requisite criteria for the NIMS Integration Center's consideration and referral to organizations, as appropriate.
The table below lists the SAR Working Group's recommended criteria for a Wilderness Search and/or Rescue Technician   to participate in the NIMS Integration Center's National Emergency Responder Credentialing System. These criteria incorporate and/or modify existing protocols and standards and/or propose their development where they do not exist.

Category
Criteria
Training
1. NFPA 472 HazMat Operations and/or OSHA 1910.120(Q)(6)(ii), HazMat     Operations Training or equivalent basic instruction on responding to and operating in a CBRNE incident
2. Recertification every 3 years
3. Minimum of Wilderness First Aid     

Experience
1. Position taskbooks that validate and verify (by AHJ) demonstrated ability to perform required skills in exercises and/or actual incidents
2. Participation in currency program per AHJ

Physical/ Medical Fitness
Fulfillment of requirement(s) as stated in the following standard(s): ?
1. NFPA 1582, Standard on Medical Requirements for Fire Fighters47, or AHJ equavilent

Certification
Recertification every 3 years

[KyCAP]

NASAR is a new thing for me to come to understand per my other thread.. http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=5576.0

A couple of things.   It looks like with a couple of letters of reference and completing the NASAR courses then you can be authorized to instruct them.    Also, looks like NASAR doesn't have an "abundance" of their instructors according to the web site.    There are NONE in Ky for example.

NASAR book store does have some "more academic" resources for SAR than what I can find in CAP realms.   As such I just dropped $200 on "books" and guides to do some research of my own on their materials.   They came in the mail on Friday with the "T-Shirt".

It does seem that interweaving the SQTR obstacles into a program that would lead to SARTECH certification knocks out two things for the membership and only increases the value (and attraction by new members).   Just have to figure it out.. like here: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1946.0

[RiverAux]

NASAR does have some decent books available that are certainly more helpful in terms of planning and running a GSAR mission than anything CAP has.  But, then again CAP doesn't even have an actual manual on how to conduct a missing airplane search even though it is supposed to be the thing we're the experts in. 

[KyCAP]

Maybe we could co-author it and sell on the NASAR store..

[sarmed1]

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

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

mk

[_]

under the supervision of a regular NASAR coordinator,

I don't see us going with the NASAR standard even in the manner you speak of.  In each possibility CAP SAR would be entirely dependent on a civilian agency and it's representatives (my understanding is that NASAR coordinators act as contractors for NASAR when they conduct evaluations).  I think we'll probably end up copying the NASAR program but use the "or equivalent" clause to create our own credentialing system.

[RiverAux]

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

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

[DNall]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[sarmed1]

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

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

mk

[RiverAux]

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

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

[sarmed1]

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

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

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

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

mk

[isuhawkeye]

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

[RiverAux]

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

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

[sardak]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike

[RiverAux]

ASTM F2209

Where are these documents available?

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

[isuhawkeye]

http://www.astm.org/

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

[RiverAux]

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

[DNall]

Mike,

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

My point is pretty simple, part 1:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[sarmed1]

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

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

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

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


mk

[sardak]

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

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

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

Mike

[Capt Rivera]

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

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

[NavLT]

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

V/R
LT J.

[Tubacap]

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

[DNall]

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

[NavLT]

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

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

V/R
LT J.

[Short Field]

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

[Tubacap]

This may be true, but with the increase of NIMS requirements, ICS 300 and I would assume 400 do a good deal of work on the Planning end of things. 

The use of operational periods is essential.  Recently, I ran a mission with 3 operational periods.  They were 4 hours in duration, but that gave us enough time to PLAN, then give the Branch Directors their taskings and all they needed to do was assign the task to the appropriate teams.

The opportunities for training PSCs are there, one just needs to go a step beyond the requirements.

[Short Field]

ICS 300 (required for PSC) and ICS 400 (not required for PSC) provide a structure but do not provide actual training in being a CAP PSC.  The closest thing we have to a formal course is the Inland SAR Planners Course (five days of how to plan ground and air searches).  A well trained PSC is critical to having OSCs and ICs that know how to sucessfully run a mission.  You can get by without it for a while - or if you are lucky forever, but there is reason for the position.

[DNall]

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

Exactly. The mission actually happens at the branch director level - planning, deployment, execution, tracking, reporting, etc. The IC really just liaises outside & delivers resources so the branch directors can execute.

In a perfect world, it couldn't work this way. The Branch directors would be more tactically focused & do significantly more tactical planning. They should be reacting to area taskings by the OSC. The PSC is the intel shop & the plans section in coordination with the OSC. The IC should be focused on the big picture beyond operational periods, and you should be actually utilizing LOs to coordinate the external for the IC.

[Short Field]

Please read CAP-USAFI 10-2701, 3 Aug 2007, Attachment 7, CAP-USAF MISSION EMPLOYMENT EVALUATION GUIDE for a break-out of mission base responsibilities.  This is the standard the USAF uses when it evaluates CAP.   The guide encompasses direction found primarily in CAPR's 60-1, 60-3, and 60-6. Some evaluation items do not have a specific reference to a current publication, but are consistent with established policies, sound judgment, and evolving employment of CAP resources.

You can argue against what attachment 7 says, but that is how we get evaluated so it strongly implies that is how we are suppose to be doing it. 

[isuhawkeye]

DNall, the approach to mission management that you are referring to is called Branch Tactical Planning.  It is an acceptable approach to Incident management.   Branch Tactical Planning is taught under unit 3 of ICS 400.  The only thing that is unique is that CAP does this for relatively small missions. 

Under this type of mission subject matter experts provide planning support to the branch level while the mission "Planning Section" provides over all mission plans support.

[DNall]

I'm familiar with AFI 10-2701 & the attachment in particular. I'm not advocating what we're doing real world here. That's not a good approach, or rather it's not a scalable approach.

Once you get beyond a certain size, a branch director really cannot do both tactical operations mgmt, AND overall planning. They aren't supposed to be creating a search plan anyway. The PSC/OSC are supposed to develop the search plan, certainly with input from the branch directors, and resource pool from the IC. The IC signs off, the OSC executes by prioritizing taskings to each operational period. The Branch director executes those taskings withing the bounds of the operational period. They do tactical planning in terms of prioritizing taskers & breaking them down into sorties plans. Hopefully they start involving GTLs by this point, at least with a WARNO & follow the 1/3rds-2/3rds rule for planning time. 

In CAP, the majority of missions we run are simple ELTs where the whole mission staff is an IC with a cell phone. For a small search (<6 Air & <6 Grd sorties per operational period), you can easily do the job w/o an OSC or PSC. For stuff that's going to last a couple weeks &/or involve more resources then that, you have to scale up to PSC/OSCs that are actually doing their jobs. The problem we have in CAP is how many missions (or even SaREx's) are above that scale? Hence, we never effectively train OSC/PSCs, so when we need them to be there, they rarely are. We end up adjusting fire by adding additional trained folks to the branch director's staffs to manage the work load so they can do both jobs, but that's not the right way. It's much more confusing, harder work, and not as effective.

So, I would argue that those two positions are better trained thru table-top than exercise or actual.

[isuhawkeye]

Just like CAP 90% of all fire and EMS responses are managed by a single company officer, or a local battalion chief.  Almost all emergency services ha difficulty training command officers for large incidents.  Table tops, and IMT's provide the experience needed for most any Emergency response industry.

[Short Field]

I always follow the truism that "You fight like you train".

[DNall]

In the military, particularly in reserve components, we have the same problem. So, every few years we blow a lot of taxpayer dollars to bring a few units together for a week or two on a large scale exercise.

I would argue that we absolutely need a more formalized training package for PSC & OSC that are heavy in table-top type stuff. But, it'd be nice to covert that to real world at some point as well. I've never been to NESA myself, but that seems like something they could expand to. Wk one on the ground & wk two running an operational period. If they're already doing some of that then great, but I'm not seeing it on the ground here.

[isuhawkeye]

I've got a program for mission planning that is table top oriented.  I can share it, or put it on.  its a 2 day course geared around CAP's mission staff requirments

[KyCAP]

On a side note, there are other resources outside of CAP and the Inland SAR course to help prepare mission base staff "academically" which CAP doesn't do well.

I have been working on this as one of my projects in CAP for our Wing Commander and OPS / ES staff.    From nuts to soup NASAR does have good resources for this to "Read" before your tabletops and SAREX missions.   While the "Title" is Managing the Lost Person Incident, I think this should be recommended reading for all Branch Director and higher staff and required reading for Section Chief and higher.

I just finished it this morning.

[RiverAux]

Thanks KY for bringing it back to the actual topic -- GSAR capability.  CAP definetely has a need to add more tasks to our training at the GBD and PSC level that directly relating to lost person and GSAR activities than we have now (if we want to have a credible GSAR force) and NASAR can provide some guidance in that area, though I would also add that the Canadians have a lot to offer.