The Future of CAP Operations

[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