The Future of CAP Operations

[JC004]

This comes up in threads from time to time, in little bits, but I thought a dedicated discussion could be worthwhile.

What should and CAN be the future of CAP's Operations - SAR, Disaster Relief, HLS, all of that? 

Given the local differences (relationships with states and local governments varying across the country), how does it get addressed from the National level, to grow operations for all? 

Are there additional opportunities in the Federal government?

What is CAP's role in your state?  What are the relationships like?

[Eclipse]

We need top-down assistance at the highest levels in getting standardized MOUs in place with the state IEMAs and related
agencies.  Federal law requires each state have an MOU with the AFRCC, but not between CAP and the state, which, in a lot of cases,
makes the former moot, and blocks our participation because of local politics.

We're stuck because we're better then adhoc resources, and have more capabilities, but we're perceived as being harder to
call out and some states think we want to come in and take over (neither is true).

Our short staffing also makes it harder to get the word out and keep it out, since we have to triple-billet everyone and
there's only so much time in the week.

Having NHQ push harder on local participation, with some sort of objective results would help - a lot of state and more local EMAs have dusty seats where CAP is supposed to sit, but CAP isn't even aware of the chair.

I think there's a ton of places we can help, and DR is probably the biggest growth area - for that we need doctrine, training and
relationships.

HLS, IMHO, is a limited role better left to the CGAux except where we have some unique capability.

[Elioron]

I think Eclipse hit it on the head for Washington.  Jurisdictional infighting has created a situation here where only a small portion of those trained can participate in actual missions.  We are required to get certified as volunteers by the State, by each county, and in some cases by cities.  As such, a ground team member may be able to search in one county but if the search area crosses into the next county they may have to come back.  Some people don't have time or money to maintain the continuing training required between CAP and the other agencies.

[RiverAux]

Unfortunately, I think the medium to long-term view is pretty dismal.

AirSAR -- we'll still have a few missing airplane searches every now and again and we'll probably still be the go-to folks for them when they happen (in most places).

Air DR photo missions -- gone in 10 years or less except perhaps for such small-scale missions that other resources aren't affordable. 

GSAR -- This is a potential growth area and once we get tired of waiting for other non-existent missions to happen we'll re-focus our attention on increasing our senior member capacity and the needed local relationships that have to be in place to get called out for these missions.

Ground DR -- This is an area of potential mission growth, but it ain't going to happen until we pick a niche area that we can become some of the experts in conducting.  National leadership is sorely needed to give some direction to our folks on what we should be doing in this area-- if anything. 

Counterdrug -- Going away within 10 years.  Cultural changes regarding marijuana will result in this being legalized or the criminal penalties lowered so much that no one is going to waste money looking for plants. 

Homeland security -- There are so many potential mission types that its difficult to predict what might happen in this area.  However, I don't think light aircraft are going to be given a more expanded role than they have now due to inherent limitations on their capability.  Yeah, we will probably still be used as aerial targets for the big-boys to practice on for quite some time, but I'm not sure what else is really feasible or likely. 

Overall, I think that the outlook for CAP's operational future is quite bleak.  Its either going to need to change dramatically in focus or be dropped.  If anything, I think it more likely that the AF might at some point be more interested in potential augmentation by CAP members of AF or ANG units than they are in potential operational capabilities.  In other words we might be viewed similarly as to how many states view their State Defense Forces -- not capable of significant independent operations but helpful in supporting other aspects of the military department.

On a related note -- I think we are still at great risk of losing the cadet program in the next 5-20 years  The obvious programmatic duplication of AFJROTC and CAP is eventually going to catch the eye of some sharp-eyed budget cutters and as the smaller program I don't see us winning that fight. 

In case you can't tell, I am quite pessimistic about the long-term outlook for CAP. 

[Flying Pig]

Id have to agree.  However I think your 10 year assessment of CD is quite generous.   

[sarmed1]

River I would argue on two points:
GSAR-This is a dying mission for CAP.  At least in my area everywhere you step you are landing on a local level team with this capability.  The Volunteer Fire Dept model has more resources, less operation restrictions, faster response times and talks the same language (even technically the same commo system) as the people that call them out.... CAP is relegated to the 3rd tier of "response"  ie we have exhausted all of our other resources; and its going to be a recovery only at this point, lets call CAP, they can bring a bunch of kids to tromp through the woods, maybe they'll fall over her....

Cadet program: In the budget plan CAP may be the "smaller" of the two programs, but its the cheaper in the AF budget plan.  Basically from the Fed stand point it uses its own dollars and more of the school dollars than the USAF's dollars.  It would be more of an attrition plan: There is (or has been) a waiting list for AFJROTC units, have the Holm center stop starting new units and just encourage prospective schools to contact CAP for the middle school program "during the waiting period", then basically never get back to them, they'll have a CAP program. they devoted their time/effort/money to, and wont be interested in starting over/switching 2 years down the road.  Sooner or later it'll be easier to allocate half of the funding currently used for JROTC to support CAP's program, than fund JROTC in its entirety. 

mk

[RiverAux]

I know I'm alone on the death of the cadet program. 

Regarding GSAR, your situation is incredibly local.  The vast majority of states do not have as extensive a local GSAR program as yours.  California and some of the western states are the exceptions, not the rules.   Even accounting for that, there are more CAP GT members than total membership in NASAR.  We're the largest GSAR unit in the US -- we just don't know it.

And, as a member of an extremely well-funded VFD I would disagree with you about their ability to pick up this mission.  VFDs have such a vast amount of training necessary just to keep up on structural firefighting quals that they don't have the time or interest or the equipment to do GSAR except for perhaps very short-term missions inside urban or suburban areas.  And quite frankly, CAP is much better equiped and more professional than most rural VFDs for this particular mission.  Could VFDs do it?  Sure, its not like its rocket science.  But, we're better.  Now, of course there are going to be a few VFDs with high-angle rescue training that could pick up that mission, but its not one we're doing anyway. 

[sarmed1]

True the number of non CAP SAR teams varies greatly with location, but do a state by state search I am sure you will find on the average there are more than 5-10 agencies in every state, and states that have a higher frequency of outdoor adventure activities will have more.

NASAR is not a team, its an organization like NAEMT, or IAFC (there are far more EMT's and Paramedics than there are members of the NAEMT)   CAP is likely the only National level GSAR organization; so it will always be the "largest".  I am sure if you dug hard enough or even did a casual survey, you would find there are far more people nationally that do GSAR than there are CAP GT qualified members. The biggest advantage CAP has is the ability to pull from individual units within a state or a region that all look the same and meet the same training standards.  Its purely a matter of organizational structure.

When I said Fire Dept I meant in the terms of organizational structure, local level dispatch and mutual aid system, not actual VFD's that do the mission. Specifically they are usually different organizations specializing in SAR or are already doing an associated mission; water rescue, high angle rescue or USAR.  The VFD's that I have seen that have a GSAR capability are almost all performing a specific "rescue" mission in addition to fire suppression duties.

A lot of SAR missions start as local level in urban or suburban type areas and are frequently solved in a short term because of the rapid response of local level resources such as the VFD and the police department, or these non-CAP teams, and that I say based on living in 4 different states over the past 15 years.

Of course CAP is better at GSAR vs the VFD, because its the only mission CAP ground teams train for.  If VFD's trained for it they would be just as good as CAP.  The argument goes the opposite, of course VFD's are better at firefighting than CAP, because its not part of what CAP does except as one small mention.... however if it became a mission responsibility, CAP would have the same standards and expectations to meet as the fire dept and thus be just as good at it.

mk

[lordmonar]

I disagree on the cadet program going away.  If anything the hypothetical budget cutter would go after the higher cost AFJROTC program before they go after CAP.

We may be smaller numerically.....but we have presence in a lot more places and don't cost the AF nearly as much.
Remember that all to JROTC instructors get a big chunk of their pay from the military....and there is the costs of all those uniforms, etc.

On the note of GDR......why do we have to be "the experts"?  It is not a competition.

[RiverAux]

On the note of GDR......why do we have to be "the experts"?  It is not a competition.

We don't have to be THE experts, but we have to be EXPERT in something relating to Ground DR if we're going to have any significant participation in these missions.  When a disaster hits and if people think of CAP they should be thinking of something that our ground folks can do to help them. 

[JC004]

Interesting perspectives.

What's the fix? 

I think other opinions would be beneficial.  It'd be nice if there were as many ideas as a....uniform thread.  *dramatic music plays*

For those who might not have a formed opinion of the future of operations:  It'd at least be great and beneficial to hear what operations are like in your area and/or state, since it varies so much.

Understanding the dynamics throughout the organization can help get a grasp of where it'll go and what should be done.

[sarmed1]

...  It'd at least be great and beneficial to hear what operations are like in your area and/or state, since it varies so much.[/b][/color]

Understanding the dynamics throughout the organization can help get a grasp of where it'll go and what should be done.

Regardless of what people seem to want to believe ie.... its one big national organization and everyone is the same.  There are specifics, even with a state sometimes, that require those units to train to a different standard.  More specifically in order to meet the mission request needs of the "customer" agencies there are variances that just cant be applied evenly to everyone in the country (mostly because the "other" CAP units dont have that specific need/or see why the would need to do X, Y, Z) 

FLWG Recon program and the PAWG Ranger Program are two examples that come to mind.  Neither will ever be a universal mission skill set to the organization as a whole... they are just not going to apply to everyone.

mk

[LTC Don]

What's the fix?

A good beginning, is for CAP nationally to revamp the 'Emergency Services Mission' and do away with the existing 'ground team' paradigm.  It's poisonously obsolete and is keeping CAP in a perpetual time-warp from the 1970s, if not earlier.  Since that time, FEMA was created, DHS was created, USAR was created, and on and on while CAP-Think is stuck.

I believe we need a whole new model created out of the FEMA or Emergency Management concept, CAP-EM if you will.  If it's not SAR, then its DR and all the varieties of DR that are out there in terms of natural and man-made.

The primary purpose of the CAP Emergency Management mission is to develop plans and programs to address the types of incidents where CAP resources can be used, and to develop and/or adopt the various training necessary for productive or meaningful response. Existing regulations already exist that direct the development of partnerships/relationships with Federal, State, and Local agencies at all command levels. State EM and Federal FEMA would be great organizations to consult with in re-designing the CAP ES mission into an Emergency Management-type model.

The CAP 'ground team' as it currently stands meets none of the skill sets needed to competently and safely perform in those environments.  There are 'pieces' of the training that work or help, but none as a total package. FEMA and the state/local EM agencies don't know what CAP ground teams are, and don't care to know what they are, yet we seem content to stick with the 'ground team' model year after year.

The key is to determine what tasks need to be accomplished, that the EM folks recognize, and train accordingly.

As mentioned in other threads, the FEMA IS-26, POD program is beginning to take hold.  For the coastal communities prone to hurricane strikes, and the Midwest states prone to tornado strikes, this is a no-brainer.  CAP should be owning this program and marketing accordingly to the EM agencies.

CERT, IS-317, is another no brainer that CAP should be owning big time. The skill sets presented in this training are perfect for our personnel and is a FEMA program that more and more agencies are utilizing. It is very disappointing that there aren't more CAP wings and units listed in the CERT state directory webpage.
http://www.citizencorps.gov/cc/CertIndex.do?submitByState=

Yet another particular program that CAP should be owning is SkyWarn
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/skywarn/
http://skywarn.org/
It is incredibly frustrating when the amateur radio equipment is throwing sparks with skywarn reports during severe weather while all that expensive CAP equipment bought and paid for with taxpayer dollars collects dust sitting underutilized at a time when we desperately need to increase member radio proficiency.  How many of you knew we actually have an MOU with NOAA?
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/NOAA__Umbrella__Annual_Agreement__4_B2236C74CAFC9.pdf   Unfortunately, it does not address ground response in a skywarn environment and this needs to be fixed.  If amateur radio groups can come into a local NWS office and set up receiving stations, why can't CAP because of liability and insurance issues? NWS desperately needs effective, trained skywarn people in many areas of the country to supplement Doppler radar limitations.  CAP is tailor made for this role as we do indeed have a vested interest in weather as an aviation organization after all.

Rural disaster response is another area CAP can provide assistance to local and state authorities to include road clearing, debris pickup, temporary fence repair, and other measures invaluable to farmers and ranchers to help them get back to work.

The Red Cross is in need of help in many areas including shelter management and damage assessment.

So there is no shortage of opportunities out there for units and wings to pick up on and start opening doors.

We don't need to be recruiting people with the idea planted that all we do is search for missing aircraft.  If that's the case, then we are doing them a disservice on their membership. The programs listed above, can be readily marketed in recruiting and retention efforts with much better confidence than an ES mindset stuck some thirty years ago.

[RiverAux]

If you're saying that CAP ground teams are not specifically trained to carry out ground-based DR tasks, then I'm 100% with you.  If you're saying that they're not capable of GSAR, then you're 100% wrong. 

[Eclipse]

If you're saying that CAP ground teams are not specifically trained to carry out ground-based DR tasks, then I'm 100% with you.  If you're saying that they're not capable of GSAR, then you're 100% wrong.

+1 - CAP simply has no DR doctrine because as of today it's not included in the mission.  We're still scoped as a SAR agency.

That's a fairly simple fix by simply adding on some tasking and training to existing ratings. 

CAP should not go anywhere near Skywarn

As to CERT if you want to be on a CERT, join a CERT.  That doesn't mean we can't augment those resources, but CERT is a >LOCAL< program in and of itself and doesn't need our help, nor is "CERT" a rating we need in and of itself.  By design, it's training local citizenry that have no other structure and is supposed to be more for self-care and neighbor care then a concerted, non-local response.  If you're "sending" CERT teams "elsewhere" you're doing it wrong.

[lordmonar]

If you're saying that CAP ground teams are not specifically trained to carry out ground-based DR tasks, then I'm 100% with you.  If you're saying that they're not capable of GSAR, then you're 100% wrong.

+1 - CAP simply has no DR doctrine because as of today it's not included in the mission.  We're still scoped as a SAR agency.

That's a fairly simple fix by simply adding on some tasking and training to existing ratings. 

CAP should not go anywhere near Skywarn

As to CERT if you want to be on a CERT, join a CERT.  That doesn't mean we can't augment those resources, but CERT is a >LOCAL< program in and of itself and doesn't need our help, nor is "CERT" a rating we need in and of itself.  By design, it's training local citizenry that have no other structure and is supposed to be more for self-care and neighbor care then a concerted, non-local response.  If you're "sending" CERT teams "elsewhere" you're doing it wrong.

We don't support local?
Tornado hits my city.....My Local Fire Chief activates the MOU...i.e. calls the NOC to get a mission number.....I call out my squadron to meet someplace convenient and we go to the affected area.   If you have a MOU at a county level same issue.

I said this before......we don't have to build thing or think of things in the Katrina level of operations. 
CERT is one of the easiest specialties we should add if we decided to get into the Ground DR.

[sarmed1]

 If CAP wants a capability that operates "off of the base" during disaster missions it needs to train teams to do just that.  The topics of CERT are a good starting point, but as a "qualification" its meant for the lay person, I dont think that is the niche CAP is trying to sell.  There needs to be a specific SQTR for a qualification that meets CAP's disaster response expectation. (and based on the range of mission tasking's it maybe multiple qualifications.)

I would be happy to see for starters just a basic "Disaster Response Team Member".

mk

[JeffDG]

I would rather see adoption of the "Typed Teams" concept to help us plug into other agency missions than a generic "DR Team".

[RiverAux]

As has been pointed out in numerous threads, actually carrying out some of the tasks that CERT trains for is problematic from a CAP point of view. 

Use of fire extinguisher -- we don't even carry them anymore and there seems to be a clear preference that if we see something on fire, we leave it alone.  Basic fire suppression with extinguishers is something expected of CERT. 

First Aid/Disaster Medical Operations -- again, problematic as to when we can give it and we don't.  CERTs are supposed to conduct triage -- is CAP going to stand behind someone who let someone die in favor of treating someone else? 

Urban SAR -- this is specifically prohibited by CAP regulation.  Going inside damaged structures sure seems like urban SAR to me. 


Yeah, CERT is probably a fine program for citizens and personally I'd be fine if CAP did all of that stuff with the proper training, but given the way we're regulated, I don't see it happening.

[Eclipse]

Of course we respond locally - we just don't call it "CERT".  We need to get away from trying to reach for
easy terms which describe a situation that doesn't exisit.

The Guard doesn't respond as a "CERT" team, and neither should we.  CERT has a specific and decidedly local lane, literally
within a given "community", and generally in smaller cities.

The village trains their people, and calls them directly.   That's not how CAP works, and never will.

Few squadrons maintain the full capability to respond individually to a given support request - they need ICS staff,
resources from other units or parts of the state, etc.  This is simply how CAP works.  It's not CERT and never will be, nor should it be.

Need our help?  Great, call us, we'll help and provide what you need.  Asking for SARTECH87, CERT, or SPECOPS?  We don't do that.

As River says above, some CERT-y stuff is out of our lane.  That just means we stay in our lane, which opens up
CERT-y people to do their thing.  "Watch this corner so we can go triage at the shelter?"  Done.

"Get us some photos of the town so we know what we're dealing with?"   No problem.

"Run a POD site?"  Where do you want it?

Etc., etc.