CAP GSAR capability

[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.