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.

[Eclipse]

I mentioned here recently a conversation I just had with the local ARC folks.

I mentioned Cadets as a potential resource for PODs and shelter ops.  The response was "well, we always need help, but having
cadets around is an issue because of supervision and safety, etc..."

My response was "Our people are always under our supervision and control.  We'll do whatever you need but the direct control and
safety is always on us."

This was news, and a breakthrough.  The ARC and similar are used to ad-hoc citizenry showing up to "help", and many times being
a detriment to operations, not to mention the increased supervisory personnel to manage adolescents.

How does one national organization - the ARC, who are always struggling for manpower, >NOT< know about another organization
that has the free, trained, and insured manpower at the ready for a phone call?   We're both included the same law!

Why are wings and lower echelons constantly discussing MOUs with the ARC, Salvation Army, etc., etc.?  Why aren't these in place nationally?

This is a direct failing or both sides at the national level.

[LTC Don]

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

Bingo.

Resource typing is the way to go, not CAP-centric thinking.

The DR responder thinking is too generic and is the current 'ground team' trap we are in.  Again, FEMA, et al doesn't know or care about CAP 'ground teams'.  We need to train up to specific tasks to be encountered and have our personnel resource typed.  And, just a brief look at the resource typing for SAR should readily indicate that CAP's current 'ground team' mindset is no where near the competency level it should be.

http://www.fema.gov/resource-management

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

Note that there isn't any such thing as a 'Ground Team' or a generic "SAR Team'.  The resource typing clearly delineates requirements for USAR and WSAR and the respective skill sets.  It isn't rocket science, but our last attempt at re-vitalizing our 'ES mission' was over thirteen years ago.  It's time for the paradigm to seriously change.


Again, we need to move to a FEMA model and re-design the CAP ES mission to merge ourselves into a more true ICS/Emergency Management model.

[sarmed1]

Regarding "Ground Team Member" I think there needs to be some re-vamping there too.
For starters even though its a draft (and unless SARDAK has some further info) doesnt seem to have gone anywhere in the past few years; the FEMA credentialing and resource typing guides would be a good place to start.

Wilderness SAR Technician and Wilderness SAR Unit Leader  vs GTM (III, II, I) and GTL.  When you look at the training requirements, CAP is mostly there using the current model.  There are a few classes that would need to be added and a few skills to meet at least the "..or equivalent" requirements.

Internally you could throw back to the way it was before:  either trainee or qualified and a separate qual for DF (ie UDF). 

The goal would be to develop resources that could then form into larger teams meeting the resource typing in the other FEMA document.  Unit level would be a type IV or III resource, with the Group (or Wings for those that dont use a group structure) the joining of individual units to make type II and a Wing being able to field a type I resource.

mk

[Eclipse]

^ I don't really disagree with this idea at the most basic level.  Our curriculum definitely needs updating.

But absent National finding a way to get us as a more-equal partner at the table - equal at least to the money
the good people of the US are spending for us.

Our situation today is essentially the same as if the Guard or the USAF called local municipalities and said "hey, if you need
air defense or support, we're here, just give us a call".

We also need to change and streamline response - in a lot of cases we're getting support requests but can't go because of
organizational red tape both inside CAP and inside the agencies we're trying to help.

[LTC Don]

^ I don't really disagree with this idea at the most basic level.  Our curriculum definitely needs updating.

But absent National finding a way to get us as a more-equal partner at the table - equal at least to the money
the good people of the US are spending for us.

Our situation today is essentially the same as if the Guard or the USAF called local municipalities and said "hey, if you need
air defense or support, we're here, just give us a call".

We also need to change and streamline response - in a lot of cases we're getting support requests but can't go because of
organizational red tape both inside CAP and inside the agencies we're trying to help.

We are our own worst enemy.  CAP is a national organization < given.  CAP is a state organization < given.  CAP is a local (community) organization < given.  Yet, we NEVER bother to step out of our sandbox when we conduct training.  More of that generic 'ground team' trap we are stuck in.

ANYTIME we set up training, it should be done as a multi-agency activity.  If you are having a 'SAREX', and you didn't bother to invite anyone outside to participate or observe < FAIL.  Your local law enforcement agency should be invited to participate or observe.  Your local EM agency should ALWAYS be invited to participate or observe.  Your local SAR or CERT team should be invited to participate or observe.

Bottom line, we don't COMMUNICATE to our local partners who we are, what we do, and how we do it.  We don't have a real appreciation of just how large an organization we are and what we can bring to the table and to simply invite others to come in to train and work with us. State and local partnerships play a huge role in the success of this type of thinking.

[Eclipse]

Bottom line, we don't COMMUNICATE to our local partners who we are, what we do, and how we do it.  We don't have a real appreciation of just how large an organization we are and what we can bring to the table and to simply invite others to come in to train and work with us. State and local partnerships play a huge role in the success of this type of thinking.

I'd go further to say that in many cases we don't even >have< local partners.

That isn't 100% our fault.  There is just as much inertia, politics, and "this is my corner" with small SAR teams as there is with CAP and
larger agencies.

CAP's issue is that many of those other organizations have the weight of law, funding, or practical reality to get them in the game (granted 100%
that those calls come with an expectation of performance we don't remotely possess as an organization today), while the small teams
and "mom's shih tzu" are by design completely flexible with no one but themselves to report to.

So to the big guys we're "little", and the little guys we're "big", yet can't really reach for the advantages of either.

[Alaric]

I mentioned here recently a conversation I just had with the local ARC folks.

I mentioned Cadets as a potential resource for PODs and shelter ops.  The response was "well, we always need help, but having
cadets around is an issue because of supervision and safety, etc..."

My response was "Our people are always under our supervision and control.  We'll do whatever you need but the direct control and
safety is always on us."

This was news, and a breakthrough.  The ARC and similar are used to ad-hoc citizenry showing up to "help", and many times being
a detriment to operations, not to mention the increased supervisory personnel to manage adolescents.

How does one national organization - the ARC, who are always struggling for manpower, >NOT< know about another organization
that has the free, trained, and insured manpower at the ready for a phone call?   We're both included the same law!

Why are wings and lower echelons constantly discussing MOUs with the ARC, Salvation Army, etc., etc.?  Why aren't these in place nationally?

This is a direct failing or both sides at the national level.

From the National MOU page

American Red Cross - The MOU with the American Red Cross expired 07 May 2002 and has not been replaced. Historically, most if not all mission support for the ARC has been through state and federal missions and existing mechanisms for employment. We expect that will continue into the future. Both organizations hold one another in great esteem and serve America well without an MOU.

[Alaric]

I mentioned here recently a conversation I just had with the local ARC folks.

I mentioned Cadets as a potential resource for PODs and shelter ops.  The response was "well, we always need help, but having
cadets around is an issue because of supervision and safety, etc..."

My response was "Our people are always under our supervision and control.  We'll do whatever you need but the direct control and
safety is always on us."

This was news, and a breakthrough.  The ARC and similar are used to ad-hoc citizenry showing up to "help", and many times being
a detriment to operations, not to mention the increased supervisory personnel to manage adolescents.

How does one national organization - the ARC, who are always struggling for manpower, >NOT< know about another organization
that has the free, trained, and insured manpower at the ready for a phone call?   We're both included the same law!

Why are wings and lower echelons constantly discussing MOUs with the ARC, Salvation Army, etc., etc.?  Why aren't these in place nationally?

This is a direct failing or both sides at the national level.

MOU with Salvation Army can be found here
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/SALVATION_ARMY_3B40305FEA5E4.pdf

[Eclipse]

^ Yes, sounds nice on a t-shirt.  A lot of agency leaders aren't aware of >current< MOUs, let alone something left to expire
12 years ago.

Also as said earlier, there are wings that don't have MOUs with their state's primary ES agency as well - the agency in charge of response and responsible for including CAP, due to that state not being interested in the conversation and there being no weight of law requiring it.

AFRCC-state MOUs are required by law.  CAP-state EMA are not.

This has been indicated by a number of people on this board as a huge impediment to our inclusion, not to mention recruiting, retention, and readiness.
(i.e. members realize we won't get called and move on, either internally to other missions or externally to other organizations).  I could be 10x more
active is I joined my town Citizen's Corps, but at this point I'm a victim of "sunk cost".

This is one of the reasons there is so much angst over NHQ getting involved in trivialities, while seemingly ignoring these real-world, issues
that challenge the viability of the organization itself.  Is this NHQ's wrench to turn by themselves?  Probably not, but with no sound
or direction whatsoever, wing CCs are free to embrace the self-actualization and status quo which is keeping us walking in the circle.

[lordmonar]

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.

Those are the road blocks.......but as this discussion is going.....they are not insurmountable.  A few changes to the regs and bam!  We're in business.

Your specific concerns......fire extinguishers.......yes we pulled them from the vans....they were there for SAFETY and pulled because of money.   If your squadron fields a CERT team.....then they would be expected to have the team gear.   So easy pleasey.

Basic First Aid.....no change is required.  We are allowed to perform basic first aid.   We are not an EMT organization....and should not be advertised as one.   So again.....if we did adopt a CERT SQTR then there should be no problem.

On the legal side of things........since we are not paid professionals......Good Samaritan Laws still apply (I'm not a lawyer.....but that is my understanding of the rules....we are still just citizens helping our community).

On the triage question......same rule.   Good Samaritan.   Only one aid provider.....he has to make the call in the field.  Hence the training.  Since this is FEMA training I am sure that the authors considered this implication before they approved the training curriculum.

Urban SAR.....again change the reg and we are golden.

[lordmonar]

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.

I disagree with terminology having any meaning benefit.

Sure we can call them DR-First Responders......expected to do the same job as the local cities' CERT teams.......so why not just call them CERT?
Sure the Guard does not field CERT teams....the field artillery platoons, communications units, CE units, ect, et al........doing CERT tasks.
IMHO if you call them CERT then the local EM people know exactly what they are getting (assuming our CERT matches FEMA CERT training standards).  If we call them something else....they may be expecting something else.

As for how the village calls out CAP......It takes an MOU and one phone call to get the local squadron out in the field.  That IS how CAP is supposed to work.  Early work by the squadron/group/wing ES people gets this done.  The only reason why CAP is "hard" to call out.....is because ES officers at the appropriate levels are not doing the leg work to make it happen.

As for "squadrons not having the support staff" again you are not thinking outside the box.   What does a CAP CERT team need as far as support staff?   The Wing IC can be miles away "running" the op over the phone (done many ELT searches with out ever actually seeing my ICS staff).  If we are talking completely local operations.....the City EM manager decides to activate his CERT teams.....on that check list is the phone number to the NOC and the phone number to the squadron alerting officers.  He calls the NOC to activate the MOU....who then do their work to start the call out....then the squadron ES officers gets the warning order from the city that the MOU has been activated.  He starts doing his call downs....by the time the wing gets the mission number the CERT team should be assembling at the rally point and ready to sign in and deploy.

Support staff would be maybe one guy to run the CAP guys from the city's command post.  Ta Da! we just fielded a cert team!

As for staying in our lane.....again this thread is about expanding out lanes.

[lordmonar]

How does one national organization - the ARC, who are always struggling for manpower, >NOT< know about another organization
that has the free, trained, and insured manpower at the ready for a phone call?   We're both included the same law!

Why does the USAF (the rank and file) not know about their civilian auxiliary?  Same reason.  No one took the time to do the leg work.

Why are wings and lower echelons constantly discussing MOUs with the ARC, Salvation Army, etc., etc.?  Why aren't these in place nationally?

This is a direct failing or both sides at the national level.

See my above.   There should be MOUs at all levels of government.....because ES is managed at all levels of government.   FEMA may(or may not) have an MOU with CAP......but they are not called in unless the event crosses some threshold and gets activated IAW with the law and existing MOUs.  The City is going to call the county first, who calls the governor who calls FEMA.   If all our MOUs are just at the national level......then we won't get called in for anything less the a Katrina Type incident.   But if we have an MOU with each local town (or at a minimum each county) then we get called in right away......and the REST of CAP would get called in later with FEMA.

Also a note on organizations like the ARC and Salvation army.  While they are national organizations and have support staff and response teams to help out on big operations.......each chapter is a local entity and they do have local MOUs.

[RiverAux]

It takes an MOU and one phone call to get the local squadron out in the field.

Actually, all it takes is one call.  We don't need MOUs with Podunk County or Podunk City.  They just need to call the NOC and request assistance. 

[arajca]

If Podunk county calls the NOC, the NOC will need to hammer out the financial and insurance details at that time. If there is an MOU in place, that's already worked out.

[Larry Mangum]

MOU's are primarily used to define how an entity will pay for CAP services ONLY if the services are performed as a corporate mission. If the services are performed as an AFAM, then any MOU is ignored.

[lordmonar]

Ah yes.....but if wing/group/squadron has met with the Podunckt City Managers and their ES people and worked out an MOU for corporate missions.  Then they would be educated about what we are and know that if the USAF was going to foot the bill then they know who to call.

Too often what happens is that someone not in a position to make the call.....cold calls someone at the squadron or wing...who may or may not know how to direct their call to the NOC.

Hence the "it's too hard to call us out".

My point is....early leg work by CAP, meeting and educating our potential customers.......will result in getting calls.
Good training, and professional conduct on our part will keep those calls coming.

And this segues into "new missions".   Someone in CAP, somewhere should either just take it on themselves to build/aquire the training in new mission areas and then test it out with in their local areas.

I know that NVWG just sent a bunch of people to FEMA PODS training.  CERT has been on our 101 cards for a while.   Let's take those two easy (fairly so anyway) skill areas....build it up, test it, use it and then push them out to the field.

[sardak]

If Podunk county calls the NOC, the NOC will need to hammer out the financial and insurance details at that time. If there is an MOU in place, that's already worked out.

CAPR 111-2, Memorandum of Understanding, OPR Legal, requires an MOU between the state and the wing. The reg does not encourage MOUs below that and suggests going through the NOC.

Para. 3(a)(2) It is recommended that CAP negotiate local operational MOUs only when (a) there is a recurring need for CAP services and support (See paragraph 1i above.) and (b) the supported entity requests or requires one.

Local MOU - any MOU below the state level.
Recurring need - 12 or more missions in a year.

Para. 3(a)(3) Alternatives to an Operational MOU. The National Operations Center (NOC) is able to support mission requests without an MOU. As an alternative to creating an operational MOU, the entity seeking support should be encouraged to contact the NOC toll free at xxx-xxx-xxxx or xxxx@xxxxx. A formal RFA may be used by the entity to request assistance for a short time or as needed over a longer period, such as a fiscal or calendar year.

RFA - A request for assistance (RFA) is typically a one page letter or short e-mail message.

AFRCC-state MOUs are required by law.  CAP-state EMA are not.

First part not true, but second part is. However, the wing-state MOU is required as stated above, also in 3(a)(2). If one doesn't exist, the wing must file a letter with NHQ explaining why there isn't .

Regarding "Ground Team Member" I think there needs to be some re-vamping there too. For starters even though its a draft (and unless SARDAK has some further info) doesn't seem to have gone anywhere in the past few years; the FEMA credentialing and resource typing guides would be a good place to start.

An organization recently dropped a token, some would say a slug, into the coin box and the FEMA typing/credentialing merry-go-round restarted. This makes the fourth or fifth restart since the FEMA typing document was originally published and the second or third since the draft credentialing document was posted. None of these subsequent drafts even went out for comment. The State Search and Rescue Coordinators Council sent a letter to DHS Secretary Napolitano and FEMA Administrator Fugate asking that the documents on the FEMA website be removed and the drafts from the last working group be sent out for comment. The response back was basically thanks for your opinion but we'll do what we want, which was start up this new group without following its own process.

Mike

[Larry Mangum]

I agree, POD should be one of the mission we heavily pursue. Not so certain about CERT, only because waht it takes to be "Certified" seems to vary from location to location. 

I pointed out that MOU's are primarily for covering the cost of Corporate missions versus AFAM's becaue too many people think an MOU will solve all of the problems and immediately get them a seat at the table.  Instead as you have pointed out "knowedgeable" people should be visiting the local, county and state EMA's to establish a relationship and set expectations as to what CAP can and can not do for them.

[lordmonar]

Sardak,

I think that is what I am talking about where CAP is it's own worst enemy sometimes.

Following a tornado, earth quake, large fire, etc.....the last thing a city ES manager needs to hear from CAP or the NOC is "fill out a one page RFA".

Maybe we need to just use a different terminology then MOU.

Even if it is some sort of form letter from CAP that we can provide to city and county governments that they can have and prefill out if/when they are ever needed.

Either way.....local units should be making these contacts with their local agencies BEFORE we are needed so that they understand what we can do for them, how we get paid, and how they call us out.

Larry......as far a differing CERT qualifications......that one is easy.....CAP CERT SQRT will not be transferable outside the wing (which is okay...as you probably will not be used outside your state anyways 99%) and the SQRT will say something like Tasks 1-50 are CAP specific task (if any) and the last Task would be "Be certified by your one of your state's CERT programs".

Also..I don't really see why crossing state lines would really be a problem.....the core certifications is a FEMA program even if it is administered (that is the teams) at a state/county/city level.

Not to mention....that by going to your local CERT program manager for training.......opens the door to do the leg work to get the MOU or RFA's in place and building the relationship we need to get called out when needed.

[sardak]

Though the reg encourages RFAs and goingg through the NOC instead of MOUs, working with the locals ahead of time is important.

Even when an event springs up and pre-work hasn't been done, it's better for the agency to contact the wing first, and not just "cold call" the NOC. This allows the wing to review the request first, give tips to the requesting agency so that the RFA says what it needs to, and gets the wing primed to help. A written request, either in the email or a letter attached to it, is required in addition to a phone call. It doesn't hurt to have the written request go to the wing which forwards it to the NOC. This process only takes a couple of additional minutes. This comes from a lot of experience with this process over the last few years.

Terminology: RFA = short form MOU.

Your form letter is here: http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cap_national_hq/general_counsel/request_for_assistance_form.cfm

Mike

[RiverAux]

Sardak,
Following a tornado, earth quake, large fire, etc.....the last thing a city ES manager needs to hear from CAP or the NOC is "fill out a one page RFA".

All they have to do is send an email.  It just doesn't get any simpler than that.  Telepathy maybe?

[LTC Don]

The basic framework for CAP DR response is already in place within Federal Law.  It is very ambiguous such that CAP simply has to choose what plan and programs are appropriate to meet the 'spirit' of the law.

It is not necessary to get hung up on the semantics of MOUs and RFAs, but this is where it is really important for the Wing Ops/ES staff to step up their game at the state level and work with the State EMAs.

And, it really helps to know the political structure in a particular state.  For many states, they operate under a 'home-rule' concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_rule

What typically happens in the DR realm is that if a local incident occurs within the border of a municipality, and that municipality has the resources to deal with the incident, then no request for assistance is made up the line. In this environment, if the local squadron has the resources to partner with local government, then great, they should do so.

If however, that incident overwhelms local resources, then local officials can put forth requests to the next level of government, the county or parish.  If the county cannot deal with the incident, then requests for assistance are pushed up to the state level.  This is where CAP has the most influence in terms of marshaling resources.

Here is the issue with home-rule.  If the county or parish pushes up tasking requests to the state, the state is obligated to respond to that request irregardless. The state will only push taskings up to the Fed if the state cannot meet the lower level request.  In the instance of multiple POD requests, the state may push re-supply taskings over to FEMA to begin bringing in food and water if the state's stocks are exhausted.

If a wing wants to partnership at the state level, then only one MOU is needed that encompasses response as a state-level resource because for the most part, if a hurricane or tornado or earthquake or some other calamity occurs, local government is automatically going to push all taskings up to the state.  This tasking flow makes it really easy for CAP in this respect.

In virtually every state, it is normal procedure for local EMAs to push any taskings up to the state EMA.  This is their comfort zone and this is what they will stay with.  Trying to educate and have local gov't call the NOC is going to be an exercise in frustration.  The best way is to position CAP as close to that comfort zone as possible by establishing partnerships at the state level with such programs as CERT, and POD.  It's best to work at the state level to educate at that level about working with the CAP NOC.

It is very important to know that within virtually all states, the Emergency Management community is a 'system' of resource management and plans all the way to the smallest municipality, and it is a small community so everyone knows one another.  It is a very political system. CAP must talk the talk, and walk the walk at all times. Taskings pushed up the line will be ICS based taskings and they will be things like POD and CERT and/or strike teams and task forces.  There won't be any requests for CAP 'ground teams'.

Framework/infrastructure partnerships have to be done ahead of time with exercises, and they need to follow FEMA standards.

[Eclipse]

AFRCC-state MOUs are required by law.  CAP-state EMA are not.

First part not true, but second part is. However, the wing-state MOU is required as stated above, also in 3(a)(2). If one doesn't exist, the wing must file a letter with NHQ explaining why there isn't .

I won't argue the first point.  I think I pulled that out of my...attendance at BISC...could well be wrong, or could be misstating a nuance.  However to my understanding
all the states have ones with AFRCC.

The latter is irrelevant when a state's not interested, and as you say, the wing must then provide a letter of explanation.

[Eclipse]

Sardak,
Following a tornado, earth quake, large fire, etc.....the last thing a city ES manager needs to hear from CAP or the NOC is "fill out a one page RFA".

All they have to do is send an email.  It just doesn't get any simpler than that.  Telepathy maybe?

Yeah, that's what it says on paper.  That's decidedly >not< how it works in real life for a variety of reasons.

[NC Hokie]

Resource typing is the way to go, not CAP-centric thinking.

The DR responder thinking is too generic and is the current 'ground team' trap we are in.  Again, FEMA, et al doesn't know or care about CAP 'ground teams'.  We need to train up to specific tasks to be encountered and have our personnel resource typed.  And, just a brief look at the resource typing for SAR should readily indicate that CAP's current 'ground team' mindset is no where near the competency level it should be.

http://www.fema.gov/resource-management

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

Note that there isn't any such thing as a 'Ground Team' or a generic "SAR Team'.  The resource typing clearly delineates requirements for USAR and WSAR and the respective skill sets.  It isn't rocket science, but our last attempt at re-vitalizing our 'ES mission' was over thirteen years ago.  It's time for the paradigm to seriously change.


Again, we need to move to a FEMA model and re-design the CAP ES mission to merge ourselves into a more true ICS/Emergency Management model.

From a brief review of the second document, it appears that CAP can already provide Type III and IV Wilderness Search and Rescue Teams as well as Type II and Type III Radio Direction Finding Teams with no changes to our existing training requirements or regulations.  If I had a vote, I'd say we should realign our ground ES program along these lines, and start telling everyone who will listen that CAP can provide X amount of these resources locally, with more available (from the rest of the wing) within 24 hours.

That just might start getting someone's attention.

[sardak]

Attached are a printout and screengrabs of how CAP resources are listed in our state's WebEOC resource database. Type IV Wilderness SAR and Type II DF/UDF teams are listed along with our aircraft. While possible, it's doubtful that anyone would look there for SAR resources. The state Resource Mobilization Annex to the state Emergency Plan says that for SAR resources call the state SAR board 24 hour number. We also tell sheriffs, who are responsible for SAR, to just call AFRCC direct for air support (we're a secondary resource for ground SAR), as does the SAR board. We tell emergency managers, for incidents other than SAR, to call us direct and we'll get the NOC involved.

Contrary to Eclipse's post, missions do get started with nothing more than an email from the agency having jurisdiction to the NOC.

Mike

[Eclipse]

Contrary to Eclipse's post, missions do get started with nothing more than an email from the agency having jurisdiction to the NOC.

Who is paying for those?

If it's the customer with an existing MOU, yes, all that is needed is an email.  If the expectation is the USAF for SAR or 1AF for DR, good luck with that.

And that also presupposes the agency will email or call.  We have had situations where the agency is locally in need of our help and wants it,
but state law requires them to go to the state for the "email" and the state isn't interested.  Very frustrating.

[Larry Mangum]

As a Federal "Assett", the process to activate is suppose to be local-state-NOC-AFRCC.  Can thsi route be bypassed, yes, a local could go directly to the NOC, however the AF will probably kick it back unless, the NOC or local authority, states there are no state assetts available.

If you read the MOU sample, you will see that in many cases it outlines the above process for each type of supported mission. That is why MOU's are normally state level aggreements and not at the local level.  Having a one page laminated document that is provided to local EMA's, which in bullet form, states what we can do and how to request the resource is probably more useful at the local level.

[RiverAux]

Eclipse, you just weren't doing it right.  If it is a legit SAR request the AF will pay for it.  Never heard of one being turned down. 

DR requests are a bit different unless it has already been declared a Presidential disaster.  If not declared, then some of those issues do need to be worked out. 

[sardak]

Contrary to Eclipse's post, missions do get started with nothing more than an email from the agency having jurisdiction to the NOC.

Who is paying for those?

If it's the customer with an existing MOU, yes, all that is needed is an email.  If the expectation is the USAF for SAR or 1AF for DR, good luck with that.

And that also presupposes the agency will email or call.  We have had situations where the agency is locally in need of our help and wants it,
but state law requires them to go to the state for the "email" and the state isn't interested.  Very frustrating.

SAR requests aren't an issue. The sheriffs, who by law are responsible for SAR, know to call AFRCC or the SAR board if they need resources. The AFRCC-State MOU is signed by the sheriff's association, SAR board, Wing and state OEM. In the rare occasions where we are called direct, we refer the caller to the sheriff, AFRCC or SAR board as appropriate.

The Wing has no MOUs with local agencies. We encourage them to call us before calling the NOC. We explain that the agency will have to pay and that the request needs to be in writing, which can be as simple as an email. In the last three years, we've had 10 requests (3 state, 7 local), all by email. In four of those, two by the same county, a signed letter was attached to the email. We then forward the request to the NOC which issues a corporate mission number and off we go.

In some cases, the NOC, after issuing the corporate number, forwards request on to the USAF for consideration as a B mission. Of the 10 requests, AF saw enough "national interest" in six of them that the -C- number was changed to -1- number. The requesting agency still paid.

As for time to do this, in every case it took longer to get our crews spun up then it did to go from request to mission number.

Mike