Recruiting senior members for GSAR

[isuhawkeye]

you can't post amber alerts for that scenario.  you need very specific criteria to trigger an amber alert.

missing persons searches (when done right) take a lot of manpower, lots of different types of resources, and an experiencedcommand staff.  When properly trained and coordinated CAP can do these searches very well

[Eclipse]

Personally, I have no idea why you're deploying those kind of resources on such a search. Is this out in some giant national forest or what? I mean we'd put an Amber alert out on something like that & LE agencies would devote some resources, but it's rather unlikely we'd put up air unless there was both an imminent danger (weather) and a high probability of finding them. I'm just really more comfortable leaving that to LE in most cases. I'm willing to give them some air support, less so with the ground for the several reasons I stated (other than criminal).

Amber alerts are specifically for children who police believe were abducted, therefore it is a criminal situation the minute they push the button and we cannot be involved.

An AMBER Alert is a Child abduction alert system[/b], issued to the general public by various media outlets in Canada and in the United States, when police confirm that a child has been abducted. AMBER is the acronym for "America's Missing: Broadcasting Emergency Response", and was named for 9-year-old Amber Hagerman who was abducted and murdered in Arlington, Texas in 1996. Exceptions are in Georgia, where it is called Levi's Call[1], Hawaii, where it is called a Maile Amber Alert [2], and Arkansas, where it is called a Morgan Nick Amber Alert[3]. Those plans were named after children who went missing in those states.

The fact is LE doesn't have the resources to do large-scale searches over extensive rural areas.  As to why we wouldn't put up air...why wouldn't we put up air?  We should provide any resource the customer or the NOC is willing to pay for to prosecute a search as expediently as possible (not to mention provide safety valves for our people like high-birds).

(typos)

[isuhawkeye]

Eclipse is 100% correct here

[RiverAux]

The number of lost person searches that I've heard about that end up being criminal cases seems incredibly small based on everything I have ever read.  Sheriffs seem to have no problem utilizing teams of searchers from all walks of life when they happen and if they were the least bit worried about it messing up a case, they wouldn't let those people out there.  Whats the big deal -- find some evidence, keep your hands off.  Seems simple enough to me and no more difficult than training our GT folks to not mess with downed aicraft except to save a life. 

We're talking about using CAP in situations like the Alzheimer's patient or people that get lost while out in the woods.  Those are true SAR situations and not the sort of "missing person" cases that law enforcement handles when a teenager runs away or may have gotten abducted.  Those obviously aren't are business. 

[DNall]

First of all, Amber Alerts yes are technically a tool for missing believed kidnapped kids. Now, once that infrastructure is in place, why would LE not use it for specifically that Alzheimer's patient kind of situation. When I drive down the freeway in town they have amber or elder alerts that flash on the digital signs with lic plate numbers & what not.

And when I say criminal, I'm not talking about walking into a crime scene that might effect a case. I'm talking about some kid goes missing & you put your team out in the surrounded woods, turns out mid-stream it might be a kidnapping. At that point we're going home even if the kid is just over the next hill. No one else including random guy off the street is going to abandon the search like that. I'd rather leave it to other orgs/agencies that don't have those kinds of restrictions - also other orgs aren't going to put kids out in the field on that kind of thing. The worst case is you figure out it's criminal when you walk up on the whack-job with the kid.

Now, I live in a suburban area of a major metro city - as yall know. 5mins one way & I'm in a very urban area, 5mins the other way & I'm in the sticks. Still, anywhere we're going to search is going to be pretty much within 5min walk from a road. A missing person search is going to be narrowed to some kind of area. I don't care if a town has 2 police officers, once they turn on mutual aid they can have hundreds of folks out there in force - LE/fire/equisearch/etc. If there is a need for hundreds & hundreds of random people with no more skill than walking a search line, they can just put it out to the general public & have a lot of response.

I guess my point is I don't really see the mission. You got one end of the spectrum where just about anyone off the street can do the job with a little supervision, and the mutual aid system has built in folks to run those large groups w/ comms, etc. And there's the other end of the spectrum where you're talking about way way out in the dark woods somewhere a real long way from here. For us that's going to be some massive national park or something. The only time I've seen tat kind of thing is in big bend, which is a lot of vertical. Park ranger rescue teams do that work, with state air support.

Again, I have no issue putting up air when it's going to be useful. For the most part though I think it's going to be a waste of resources for most missing persons searches. I'd rather them focus their resources in on the target areas. The air support that's going to be actually useful is usually going to be helo, not cessnas.

And again, I'm not against us doing the mission!! I'm against CAP nationally shifting our GSAR focus to this as a primary mission set. It's something we can do from time to time on the side, but certainly not something we should specialize in.

[Eclipse]

DNall, I'm missing your point here - Amber alerts aren't "technically" for abducted kids, that's all they can be used for, what they should be /could be/etc., is irrelevant.

This is squarely in our court - a much more structured, "professionalized" force of people who can be tasked to do something with a high degree of certainty they will do it close to correct.

"Civilians" in the same situation will require professional monitoring by members of the agency they are supporting, and haven't likely had any training on how to act in situations like these.

As to the aircraft, again, for $85-100 an hour, if its sitting on the ramp, why wouldn't you put it up.  Grandpa in a white housecoat will be easier to spot by air in the middle of a cornfield than by ground pounders.

I also don't see how you can assert this is a shift in focus, its just one tasking in our Ground mission, and an expectation
of our qualified people.  A big chunk of the country is no longer desolate wilderness that requires helicopter evac, as you say, it is traditionally rural and semi-rural areas where populations have encroached on woods and farms, and people get themselves lost.

GSAR, by me, is never going to be about survival experiences.

[RiverAux]

Lets not get sidetracked on a discussion of the purpose of CAP ground teams.  I think that we can all agree that we need more adults for ground team work no matter what we have them doing. 

[Eclipse]

Lets not get sidetracked on a discussion of the purpose of CAP ground teams.  I think that we can all agree that we need more adults for ground team work no matter what we have them doing. 

Well, to get things back on track, I can agree that we need more members, period, but it is not my reality that GSAR is a "cadet" thing.

Most are unable to respond or deploy on their own, nor for extended periods.  I appreciate it when they can participate, but generally assume their numbers will be limited.

I had a small bivouac this weekend that I turned around in a couple days because of a change in a larger SAREX, completely  ground-tasked focus, with 9 participants and only 2 cadets.

Id you aren't getting enough seniors for GSAR and related operations, you aren't selling it right, which may be the point.

For example, an impetus by us is to have all aircrew UDF qualified so they can actually do something on the ramp if they fly to an airport with an active ELT.

Sell the mission and its value, not the participants.  If you have old-schoolers who don't want to deal with cadets, don't invite cadets to all the parties.

[DNall]

DNall, I'm missing your point here - Amber alerts aren't "technically" for abducted kids, that's all they can be used for, what they should be /could be/etc., is irrelevant.

You understand "Amber Alert" is a made up thing in the first place. A kid gets kidnapped, bank gets robbed, etc it has always gone out over the telex to every agency in the state, and always been on the news right away. It's a very small matter that they now post it a few websites & road signs. They do exactly the same thing here for missing elders, car chases, or any other such thing. And 99% of the time it's completely useless.

This is squarely in our court - a much more structured, "professionalized" force of people who can be tasked to do something with a high degree of certainty they will do it close to correct.

"Civilians" in the same situation will require professional monitoring by members of the agency they are supporting, and haven't likely had any training on how to act in situations like these.

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.

As to the aircraft, again, for $85-100 an hour, if its sitting on the ramp, why wouldn't you put it up.  Grandpa in a white housecoat will be easier to spot by air in the middle of a cornfield than by ground pounders.

You know as well as I do the cost is 2-3 times that much depending on gas prices. And you can't see much from a 1000AGL at 100kts. 150-500ft tops & 30-60kts is what you need for individuals on the ground. That & able to drop in on targets w/o having to orbit in. The money means very little in this kind of case. The time to use CAP is the same as for ELTs. You narrow it down to a focused area with the cheap flying. Then hit the priority target areas with more effective platforms.

I also don't see how you can assert this is a shift in focus, its just one tasking in our Ground mission, and an expectation of our qualified people.  A big chunk of the country is no longer desolate wilderness that requires helicopter evac, as you say, it is traditionally rural and semi-rural areas where populations have encroached on woods and farms, and people get themselves lost.

GSAR, by me, is never going to be about survival experiences.

I think you're misunderstanding helicopter search, but whatever, that's not the point. his premise here is we need more adults on GSAR so we can move away from missing aircraft search as it falls away & take up an alternate primary mission of missing persons. I disagree with that. I believe we should retain focus in support to civil authorities in whatever form that may take. I don't particularly care about saving an individual here or there. It's nice I guess, but I'm here to accomplish big things for my country. To me that means disaster much more than missing persons. It's not that we can't do both, we just have to understand where our focus is.

[NavLT]

I think that age/grade restricitons for cadets might be a good thing but you need to consider which is wiser.  A cadet who is 17 but a C/A1c vs a C/1LT who is 15.  Some of this is very arbitrary.  I think linking it to grade is smarter if you have a program where they actually do the "commanders verify that the member is matrue enough to handle the grade".

Ground SAR is a little more dicey because you don't get exposed to all the ugly issues up close from 5000 feet.  DR if you look at Katrina had bodies floating in the muck so that is not safe either.  If you want SAFE get out of SAR.

V/R
LT J.

[DNall]

^Roger that. The restriction we mentioned, IIRC, says age AND grade. So the 15yo C/1Lt would still not be able to do GTM2. The 17yo C/A1C would only be able to do UDF till they get beyond wright bros, then only GTM3 till whatever. I don't know that we hashed it out fully, but the gist is prereqs in both categories - so they have both experience int he program AND maturity (we hope). Fact is there's no circumstances under which I should be able to put a 12-13yo kid in front of a dead body, and the court isn't going to care how far they've progressed in the program.

[notaNCO forever]

From what I've seen you can't judge a cadets grade by there maturity. In a perfect world I think restrictions on age/grade is a great idea. In are squadron the deciding factor if a cadet can be on the GT is the GTL and squadron commander.

[DNall]

^ customers aren't going to take that, and neither are the civil courts. Neither are our Sq CCs really prepared to make those kinds of decisions.

There's a really big difference between GT that really means UDF or even real search, versus walking up on a crash. We know our GTLs should be able to keep them off the bad stuff, but we don't actually train them for that. As much as we'd like to say that's part of the approval process, we need those folks so desperately that it isn't. And they end up being drivers for cadets on most missions anyway.

There's no separation of what mission poses more CISM or hazard risk than another. That's a critical part of the process. You then need resources (teams made up of mbr qual levels - GTM1-3) that can be plugged into those risk levels.

The end result of that system is.. well it doesn't actually make us less mission capable, it points out the lack of capability we have right now, and creates the demand to fix that, while at the same time being a good thing within the cadet program.

[NavLT]

The end result of that system is.. well it doesn't actually make us less mission capable, it points out the lack of capability we have right now, and creates the demand to fix that, while at the same time being a good thing within the cadet program.

While I whole heartedly agree it creates a demand to fix what is wrong, I wait to see any move to fix it.

I think I would say it proves the falsehood of our stated capability to reality as opposed to saying it does not make us less mission capable.

No single arbitrary bench mark is going to fit; age, grade, height, etc.



V/R
Lt J.

[Rotorhead]

First of all, Amber Alerts yes are technically a tool for missing believed kidnapped kids.

Not just "techincally."

Specifically, and by law.

[DNall]

First of all, Amber Alerts yes are technically a tool for missing believed kidnapped kids.

Not just "techincally."

Specifically, and by law.

Dear God!!! Every time a kid has been kidnapped since the 60s a telex message has gone out to every agency in the state. The only thing that law did was put that info in the public. I don't know if it's ever mad a difference, and not to be cold but I don't care. Now, that you have that infrastructure of pushing the info out for specifically missing kids. Why in the world would you hold back the same info for missing adults in distress (ie the Alzheimer patient scenario). Who the hell cares what you call it, and what does it have to do with CAP?!?

Now, back to... ELT & search for missing aircraft is in decline with improved technology & has been since the 50s. CAP doesn't have enough ES mission to keep our members active or motivated to train. Hence, we have massive problems with membership recruiting/retention, ES readiness, and training. The net result being we're declining in relevance from where we once were.  Meanwhile many other needs exist in the country that CAP is exactly suited to fill, and which fit our traditional purposes. So...

Should CAP: A) stick to SaR & refocus our skill set on missing persons, with all the pros/cons that come with that; or, B) stick to the reason we got into SaR, which is support of govt/AF mission needs, and hence refocus our ES program on aspects like disaster response & actually niche out a place for ourselves in HLS?

My position is without question B. I'm willing to do a little of A within reason/restrictions & way down the list secondary to B, but B is what we're all about & what we need to fix ourselves to build the future on.