Should CAP focus on organizing volunteers during searches?

[RiverAux]

Most everyone has seen the stories on the news about the lady from Ohio who was missing for a few days and for whom a massive search with as many as a thousand or more searchers showed up to help every day.  Her husband was recently arrested for murder. 

Anyway, an organization called Texas EquuSearch http://www.texasequusearch.org/ was given credit in many news stories for organizing the volunteer search.  They tend to focus on horse-mounted SAR, but for some reason apparently were the lead group on this search -- at least "lead" as far as organizing the volunteers. 

Now, we all know that CAP has only a limited ground SAR capability in terms of manpower.  Yes, we provide decent training, but the handful of ground SAR personnel we can turn out for any one search is extremely limited compared to those provided by other agencies, never mind the tons of one-time volunteer searchers that show up for "event" SARs such as this one. 

Of course, local law enforcement is going to be in charge of these missing person searches (assuming it isn't on land such as National Parks where someone else has primary authority).  And, we all know that generally they would prefer that all these untrained volunteers would not be there, but can't turn them away for public relations reasons as well as the fact that sometimes these volunteers actually do find someone (happened this week near me). 

Since CAP's manpower is going to be limited, why not concentrate it where we might be able to do the most overall good for the search?  Why not use CAP to help get the untrained volunteers organized and provide them with at least competent leadership instead of sending hundreds of people off into the woods with little idea of what to do?

I bet that if the local CAP unit had some good ground team personnel and had a relationship with the sherrif, that the sheriff would be more than happy to turn over some of these people to CAP to lead.  Basically, the CAP ground team would then become the core of one of the search units and would be supplemented by the non-trained volunteers.  Of course, if we had a couple of extra GTLs they could be put in charge of other volunteer groups. 

Of course our folks would need some extra training in how to lead these groups seeing as how they are probably not going to have even the basics of field equipment. 

Some of your are thinking that this sounds farfetched, but I know we have on occassion done similar things when "volunteer" pilots get involved in air searches.  Now, that doesn't always work out well, but it has been done.

The rest of you are thinking, "LIABILITY, LIABILITY, LIABILITY" and I won't say that this isn't a concern.   

[Al Sayre]

We discussed this a bit in the SAR Planning school, and if the GT is under the overall authority of the County Sherrif etc. then he can augment the team with whom ever he likes and appoint a CAP GTL as the leader.  However if it is CAP running the show, then we can't add volunteers because of 60-3, since they don't have 101 Cards...

[Tubacap]

This happened a year ago on a search for a missing boy that I was on.  I was the GTL, and was split off from my normal ground team with another GTL to work with a large amount of volunteers.   The search process was successful, but we did send a few emergent volunteers back because they were not fit for the woods.  They understood, but it took away some of our field resources to deal with this.

Overall I think it was the best for the situation, and it was the primary situation that RiverAux just stated.  I do however think that if this were to become a stated goal then something would needed to be added to the GTL SQTR to assist managing emergent volunteers. 

On the topic of Emergent Volunteers, it is touched on several times in the Professional Development Series offered by FEMI IS.  It's a pretty good serious, but you have to be fairly decent at distance learning.

[RiverAux]

However if it is CAP running the show, then we can't add volunteers because of 60-3, since they don't have 101 Cards...

Well, that isn't going to ever happen anyway unless one of our own people got lost on a CAP operation and we were looking for them prior to bringing in the civil authorities. 

I suspect all of us would rather work with our own team, but I think that in some cases we would best serve the overall mission by providing some leadership to these folks lest they get lost or seriously injured themselves without anyone watching over them. 

Of course the primary problem is that most local authorities don't even know our ground teams are available and don't call CAP for help in the first place, but thats a topic for another thread (and has been before).

[isuhawkeye]

Iowa does this a lot.  we traditionally break up one 5 person element to train and manage convergent volunteers. 

It's not as good as having trained teams in the field, but it is better than having the spontaneous run a  muck

[arajca]

An idea I had was to run a multiple day DR exercise to train personnel to handle spontaneous and unorganized volunteers. Since the purpose of the exercise would be to handle coordination and training, the actual work the volunteers would do is almsot irrelevent. I figured on getting groups like Habitats for Humanity, local wildfire planners, forest and park managers, etc together to come up with a list of work the volunteers could do. Then, on a preplanned weekend, run the exercise.

Now, CAP would NOT be the lead agency, but would be helping at the base and camps to manage the volunteers.

[RiverAux]

Thats a possibility and would be ICS training, but I do suspect that the involved agency in this case would prefer much greater control and might not need CAP as a "middleman" since its not an emergency and probably not as many volunteers would be showing up.  Worth a try, but make sure you've got good people to run it or it would just make CAP look bad to a wide audience.

In these "event SARs" they need every capable hand they can get and probably wouldn't mind passing some off to CAP. 

[arajca]

It would not be to much of an ICS training, although that would definitely be a part of it. Most exercises and trainings are done where the lead agency has a pretty good idea of how many people will be there and what their background is. They also know that the players will understand how to work in a semi-chaotic organizational structure.

CAP would not be a middleman, but would be part of a team that is making this happen. Pretty much as I see one potential use for CAP.

[RADIOMAN015]

I think it depends upon the state.  For example Massachusetts by law the Massachusetts State Police is responsible for wilderness & other searches using the Special Emergency Response Team that organizes the search & brings in other specialized sources.   See "Plan for Civilian Search & Rescue", so it's a non starter in Massachusetts.   I would agree as to liability issues also.   

[arajca]

Which is why I specified DR (Disaster Relief), not SAR (Search And Rescue).

Contrary to what many CAP members seem to believe, ES encompasses more than just SAR.

In regards to the various LE agencies that are assigned SAR management responsibilities, what is to stop them from calling in CAP if we can provide a valuable resource?

[RADIOMAN015]

As far as DR missions go FEMA, your local state EMA, and local communities are forming what are called "Community Emergency Response Teams"  see: https://www.citizencorps.gov/cert/  It varies by community what these teams will do, some set up shelters, etc.....  I would guess that CAP could be put into a disaster plan with a MOA , BUT again, unfortunately, it gets down to a liability question as who is responsible in case there's some injuries.
K   

Which is why I specified DR (Disaster Relief), not SAR (Search And Rescue).

Contrary to what many CAP members seem to believe, ES encompasses more than just SAR.

In regards to the various LE agencies that are assigned SAR management responsibilities, what is to stop them from calling in CAP if we can provide a valuable resource?

[RiverAux]

Folks, some of you missed the point -- I didn't say that CAP should take over the search, just offer our services to the agency that has overall control in this specific area, just like the Ham radio folks offer to do comm. 

[SARMedTech]

Since there is a certain element of man tracking to SAR, my biggest concern would be the non-CAPs destroying vital pieces of information and items that might help us find an individual. I wonder what cool stories some of you have from SARs. I was on one in NM and we got within about 200 yards of our lost person and then followed the smell of clove cigarettes right to him.  Does CAP ever make the decision that a search and rescue becomes search and recovery based on known information, or does that only come from local law enforcement. Im trying to think of an instance where you might suspect that you are now on a recovery instead of a rescue. Perhaps a diabetic lost on a mountain for 4 days without their meds. Thats probably a lame one...would be interested to hear what so veteran groundpounders have to say about their experiences. Maybe that should be a thread.

[ZigZag911]

I think there is probably more utility for this possibility in DR missions...the Red Cross never has enough shelter managers or workers, and at least sometimes gets trained CAP officers to run or help with them.....there are always emergent volunteers....this might be the right venue for 'off the street' helpers -- or possibly CERT civilian members -- our wing presently has a group of officers taking CERT training.

We've had experience with 'combined skills' teams, e.g., CAP ground team (around here, at least, our land nav skills & comm capabilities are unmatched), augmented by wilderness search/medical/extraction teams and/or canine search teams from other volunteer organizations -- already trained, qualified, and experienced to the standards of their agency.

Taking untrained folks into anything other than urban/suburban terrain raises too many issues: safety, legal liability, and effective search procedures -- including the real possibility of untrained people overlooking or inadvertently destroying essential clues.

[SARMedTech]

I wish we could get rid of the word clue from our SAR/Tracking vocabulary. Everytime i hear it, I think of the board game. Many SAR groups or man-trackers use the word "spoor" which means more or less the indication of the movement of a creature, in this case perhaps a lost child or a pilot who didnt stay with his plane.  This word was used by the Selous Scouts of the Rhodesian Defense Force who were known around the world for their ability to track down and find people. Of course they were dealing with fugitives and we are talking about a pilot who may have hit his head and wandered into the tree line where his a/c went down. They used techniques like the depth of a footprint, determining weather a branch had been crushed intentionally or accidentally as someone went through the trees. There methods were amazing and absolutely have alot we could use in modern day SAR.

selousscouts.tripod.com/tracking.htm

[wingnut]

I hate to bring up the subject but does  'CIVIL AIR PATROL" mean anything, if you want to run around in the woods and look for lost hikers the local search and rescue organizations are usually better equipped and trained. AFRCC has said that they will not cover 'LOST PEOPLE" it is not part of the AIR Forces Mission, anything beyond that is local. We are too small to be trying to be th "WE CAN DO ALL SAR" it is not our job. Your not covered under AFAM on non AFRCC searches, maybe a state coverage if an MOU is in place. I think you should join the local search and rescue organization for that. I do think we need more training in finding a lost individual from the Air and I agree that maybe a Flir device is and should be considered for the future of CAP.

[sarmed1]

I hate to bring up the subject but does  'CIVIL AIR PATROL" mean anything, if you want to run around in the woods and look for lost hikers the local search and rescue organizations are usually better equipped and trained.

Have your read 60-3 or looked at SQTR's other than aircrew?  There are 4 specialty qualifictions GTM's 1-3 and GTL  They are about more than looking for missing aircraft.  The skill set is the same (at the GTM & GTL) as the NASAR qualifications for SARTECH II & I.  There are wings out there that this is part of their mission profile.

mk

[sardak]

Squawking 7500

I wish we could get rid of the word clue from our SAR/Tracking vocabulary. Everytime i hear it, I think of the board game.

Please learn to accept the word "clue."  It is one of the fundamental words in SAR and you won't find a SAR organization, text or training program that doesn't use the word.  You may use "evidence" as a synonym.

Many SAR groups or man-trackers use the word "spoor"...

The SAR tracking community rarely uses the word "spoor."  "Sign" is the most common term used by SAR trackers.  "Spoor" is the word used by the tactical tracking community, which as they make clear, differs greatly from the tracking methods used by SAR.  The two methods are not competing, as they have different purposes.

There methods were amazing and absolutely have alot we could use in modern day SAR.

The fundamentals of tracking date back to cavemen.  Unfortunately, tracking to save a life is not so simple that a caveman can do it.  But the basic techniques used by hunters, animal trackers, SAR trackers, tactical trackers and the Selous Scouts are identical.

Squawk 1200 and ident.  Back to the thread topic which drifted well off course several posts back.
Mike

[ZigZag911]

To the best of my knowledge, the shift from 'search and rescue' to 'search and recovery' is always made by the agency with responsibility for the mission, which would normally mean LE or AFRCC.....I don't think there is ever an instance in which CAP officially, publicly makes this determination....of course, it is certainly possible in some cases that our air branch or liaison personnel provide some input to the decision-makers.

[RiverAux]

I've got no problem expanding this concept to DR operations.

Regarding untrained people messing up clues...that is an excellent point, but I submit that you will never find an elected county sheriff telling hundreds of people to go home and let his 10 deputies and a small CAP team handle the entire search.  That sheriff has to get re-elected.  Given that these emergent volunteers WILL be on site, I think it would be better to have them under somewhat close supervision by a CAP GTL who might at least be able to stop them from really messing things up. 

Regarding Civil AIR Patrol, it takes significantly more training to become a GTL than it does to become a Mission Observer and since we're spending time training these folks, we might as well use them for lost person SAR since they won't be used on ground searches for missing airplanes more than a few times in their whole CAP career.  Seems to be a waste of a resource.