Lack of Info/Specs on NHQ Website

[A.Member]

Perhaps I missed it but I don't see anything on the NHQ website or eServices that lists our equipment, specs, and/or capabilities related to Operations - ie something equivlant to USAF's Fact Sheets on their website.

Does anyone else know if this exists on our official site (Wiki has more detail but I'd never reference Wiki to an official agency or outside organization)?

To me, this is information is important for telling our story.

[lordmonar]

On Eservices there is a link to CAPabilities page.  It has a hand book that is downloadable.  It is 2008...but the most of the information looks current as far as I can tell.

[sardak]

You can get to the CAPabilities materials directly here: http://www.capmembers.com/emergency_services/capabilities-handbooks--briefing/

These are 2010 versions, and there is a PowerPoint briefing dated 2012.

Mike

[A.Member]

Thanks guys!

[cap235629]

I just went through the entire Powerpoint and have 2 gripes.  One one is an annoyance and the other really ticks me off.

1. They have orientation flights listed under the Emergency Services mission.  Really???
2. There is absolutely no mention of any ground operations at all. No flight line, no UDF, no Ground Team, no support to Disaster Relief. Nothing, Nadda, Zip.

Can you guess which one ticks me off?

[lordmonar]

On your gripe with number 2.

We cannot by regulations martial any other aircraft but CAP aircraft with out NHQ approval.  So we should not advertise that capability to our potential customers.

On the ground support for DR.....what do we bring to the table?  Shelter Managment?  Sandbags?  CERT?  Where are the SQTRs for those?  Where is the 60- series regulations coverting those?

For Ground SAR....I agree that it does not help that it is not advertised as a possible resource.

[Eclipse]

We marshall other people's aircraft all the time.  NHQ approval isn't that big a deal if the paperwork looks solid.

On the GT front, we train our teams to be flexible and self-sufficient, so the definition of "DR" is whatever we want it to be
and the IC/NOC approves (outside LE functions and a few other things specifically verboten).   I also agree we should be
moving 60-3 to actually train our people on some DR activities, but at the end of the day, DR is about well-being checks,
preventative measures for flooding and similar, people transport, and related activities, none of which is rocket science
and can be taught to an already ES-minded force pretty quickly.


As you say, no advertising means no awareness.

[♠SARKID♠]

On the ground support for DR.....what do we bring to the table?  Shelter Managment?  Sandbags?  CERT?  Where are the SQTRs for those?  Where is the 60- series regulations coverting those?

A few years back, Lake Delton busted open and drained itself into central Wisconsin.  When Wisconsin Emergency Management got our readiness notice, they called back.

"What the heck would we need 400 pilots for?"
"No, those are our ground assets."
".........Oh." 

We had about 450 members show up and over two weeks we put in over 5000 man hours into the flood relief, which was declared a disaster of the "V" device persuasion.  We were doing everything.  Cleaning out houses, helping sandbag, gutting homes, whatever was needed.  I was only able to help for a day. I spent my time helping throw out waterlogged and moldy items in one home and moving all the furniture into storage from another. It doesn't take a SQTR to know how to do manual labor.  We've done the same thing helping out MNWG when they've hit hard times.

The fact that the pamphlet makes no mention of our ground assets makes me a little twitchy.

[lordmonar]

Oh I agree...that CAP needs to take a better look at supporting DR other then just aerial survailance.

CERT is now on the 101 card...but we don't have SQTR for it.
I certainly think we need to partner with the ARC and get involved with things like selter managment, Sandbagging, building search and other things of that nature. 

To do that CAP needs to develope the regulations and guidance to better manage it.
We need to have clear training path.

Until that happens....we should not be advertising ourselves as something we are not.

[wuzafuzz]

I think CAP should embrace CERT, if only because emergency managers know what it means.  Having a force of able-bodied volunteers is great; marketing them will make it even better.

Several years ago a tornado ripped through a local town near me.  CAP fielded over a hundred people (basic ES) at the request of Salvation Army.  I think they liked the fact we could field a lot of people in a hurry.  The tasks weren't complex, just labor intensive.  I don't think anyone else knew who we were, at least initially.

Does ARC invite other organizations to work for them?  I've heard they are pretty strict about such things now, even requiring background checks of their own people.  Just asking.

[Eclipse]

Does ARC invite other organizations to work for them?

Yes, it's fairly common in my wing, though not as consistently as we'd like.  We've done disaster assessment for them at least twice in the last few years.

It's all about the local contacts.

[Ed Bos]

Oh I agree...that CAP needs to take a better look at supporting DR other then just aerial survailance.

CERT is now on the 101 card...but we don't have SQTR for it.
I certainly think we need to partner with the ARC and get involved with things like selter managment, Sandbagging, building search and other things of that nature. 

To do that CAP needs to develope the regulations and guidance to better manage it.
We need to have clear training path.

Until that happens....we should not be advertising ourselves as something we are not.

CAP doesn't have an SQTR for CERT, because the training is completed outside of CAP, and then documentation is provided to your unit's ES Officer for inclusion on your 101 card.

from: http://www.capmembers.com/emergency_services/operations_support/capr-60-3-transition-guidance/

1 MARCH 2010 UPDATE - CERT TRAINING: Some personnel have been confused by the requirements on the SQTR for both classroom and practical trainng for CERT.  The intention is to require personnel to complete the CERT class in accordance with DHS' published guidance to its trainers, not for CAP to develop its own classroom or practical training.  CERT training as outlined has a somewhat flexible schedule, and in some areas the training may be completed in several back to back days of classroom lecture followed by practical skills immediately, while in other areas classroom training is conducted in short sessions over potentially the course of months, and then practical training is completed.  Either way is acceptable to CAP.  CAP is recognizing members that have successfullly completed CERT training as outlined by DHS.  Additionally, the IS-317 course does not meet the requirements for qualification; though useful information often used in conjunction with a full class, it does not meet the requirements intended for qualification per CAPR 60-3

[Walkman]

CERT is now on the 101 card...but we don't have SQTR for it.

The SQTR only has one item: "Complete DHS/FEMA Compliant CERT Training". That kinda' makes sense as the CERT training will have it's own version of the SQTR. So get CERT done locally, check the box in eservices and you're good to go.

Whoops, Ed beat me to it.

[davidsinn]

CERT is now on the 101 card...but we don't have SQTR for it.

The SQTR only has one item: "Complete DHS/FEMA Compliant CERT Training". That kinda' makes sense as the CERT training will have it's own version of the SQTR. So get CERT done locally, check the box in eservices and you're good to go.

Whoops, Ed beat me to it.

CERT Instructor here, CERT has a 21 hour course that you must complete 90% of to become CERT qualified. CAP does not, and should not have a SQTR for it because it is a FEMA course.

[Walkman]

CERT Instructor here, CERT has a 21 hour course that you must complete 90% of to become CERT qualified. CAP does not, and should not have a SQTR for it because it is a FEMA course.

Exactly my point. I guess I didn't communicate it well.

BTW, without hijacking the thread too much, how are those 21 hours distributed? Over weeks, weekends, a couple of months? I see a lot of potential in creating relationships with local CERT.

[a2capt]

A couple in my unit asked about taking that course, and if it applied to CAP - this one in particular, is 3 hours, twice a week. 6 to 9 PM, Tuesday and Thursday.

[davidsinn]

CERT Instructor here, CERT has a 21 hour course that you must complete 90% of to become CERT qualified. CAP does not, and should not have a SQTR for it because it is a FEMA course.

Exactly my point. I guess I didn't communicate it well.

BTW, without hijacking the thread too much, how are those 21 hours distributed? Over weeks, weekends, a couple of months? I see a lot of potential in creating relationships with local CERT.

There are many ways to do it.  The EMA that I'm an instructor for does them over two weekends normally. We do it over a single weekend for CAP when we run them. What I did, is I took the CERT class with a CAP member/CERT instructor as a CAP activity hosted by the EMA. I then went and took the CERT train the trainer course from FEMA which is 24 hours in the class room.

[Spaceman3750]

At one point, some folks in my wing were discussing the idea of training enough people and registering the wing as a CERT team. That never came to fruition, but it's an interesting idea.

[Pylon]

Thinking about it, this "CAPabilities" document might be better left as a template and updated at the wing level, with each wing having their own list of capabilities and numbers.  Because the services and resources CAP can provide in one Wing can vary wildly to another, and in all likelihood (with the exception of rare, massive, multi-wing operations like the Fossett search) if an agency calls on CAP, we'll be drawing resources from what that local Wing has on hand. 

If you're the Wing or local ES person and you give a local agency contact the National booklet, it might give the wrong impression.  That local or state agency doesn't have 60,000 CAP members at their disposal.  At the most, they might get a hundred or two ES-qualified personnel with a wide variety of experience.  They might see the Airvan and ARCHER, but not realize the nearest one is two states away and that Wing holds onto it with a death grip.  They might see mountain flying operations, but not realize that there isn't a mission pilot in their state with that qualification.  Etc.

So why not produce capabilities documents at a local level, where agencies are most likely to draw their resources from anyway, and leave the high-level capabilities documents for NHQ to use in promoting us nationally with federal agencies.

[davidsinn]

At one point, some folks in my wing were discussing the idea of training enough people and registering the wing as a CERT team. That never came to fruition, but it's an interesting idea.

It's good that it never happened. They clearly do not understand CERT. CERT is local. CERT is supposed to have a response time measured in minutes, not hours or days.