The Future of CAP Operations

[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