MROs in the field

[UWONGO2]

Missions that involve dropping ground teams off in the middle of nowhere via helicopter are extremely rare around here (in fact, it's only been done during exercises), but we've seen a lot of challenges when we do. With numerous teams from various agencies on the ground, a comm plan that provides the appropriate interoperability in addition to direct communication with our team members while they're all in the middle of nowhere is not a simple task. Having comm experts on the ground would likely help iron out some of the unforseen gremlins that pop-up, but we currently do not have any comm experts on our ground teams (and none are interested in becoming one).

What's the idea here?  Program radios in the field?

Probably not, although certainly doable for long-term deployments to nowhereville. I was thinking more along the lines of multi-agency missions where everyone has different kinds of radios and while in the field something crops up that someone with technical knowledge may be able to develop a "Plan B" onsite easier than someone who's back at the command post, potentially out of comm range (depending on the issue). More like having an onsite COM-L or COM-T onsite, which as I said, probably doesn't make sense unless it's a multi-day deployment to the field.

A "comm expert" isn't going to have anything to do day-of if that interoperability hasn't been established well in advance at much higher levels.
If necessary, field expediency is going to mean that one of the agencies hands us a radio, or we hand them one of ours, and we communicate,
or more appropriately the communications are relayed through the ICP, miles away, where robust infrastructure is located.

This is how I would have expected it to go in other places I've lived but here, that's unfortunately not the case. The agencies we deal with in remote areas have smaller budgets and simply don't have a cache of radios to hand out to the NGOs that they ask to come help. It's a BYOR (bring your own radio) type party.

I'm a huge proponent of comm training that involves the bare minimum of what an end user needs to know to effectively operate the radio and typically that's all you need in a ground team member. That said, when you're running one or two local nets plus the link to the high bird and another for CAP only coordination, you've likely surpassed the skill set of most GT members. There are reasons why police departments will deploy dispatchers in their mobile command posts. Cops use radios everyday and do just fine, but most won't have the skill set to handle dispatcher-type duties.

Local nets?  This isn't a Field day this is a SAR/DR mission.  A ground team is out there for a reason, search or help, nothing else.
The team needs comms for only one thing - command and control.  "Where are you, what are you doing?"

Perhaps using the term "net" was not the greatest idea because it means different things to different people. For example, one frequency for local ground operations of all ground teams on site (remember, multi-agency). Another frequency for CAP airborne repeater so that CAP folks can talk to CAP folks, another frequency for High Bird relay (usually some sort of public safety frequency our airborne repeater doesn't do) from the ground leadership back to the public safety dispatcher who's sitting in a trailer at the command post. Throw in the ISRs for GTL to GTMs and it turns out to be a lot of radio traffic to monitor.

[Brad]

Just look into doing what we do and put a public safety airborne repeater in the CAP plane. We do it as standard response for hurricanes with SCDPS; put a CAP plane up as a backup repeater in case the ground sites get offed. We fly every year as part of the annual multi-agency hurricane drill, in fact I've talked to my squadron ops officer on the other end while at work in my dispatch capacity. Eliminates an extra channel. One to two active channels, plus 10 on standby as needed, with about 15 units on each channel is actually a typical day at work for me. Granted the standby channels are only there if needed, which hopefully they won't be, but again, all of this is covered in a good solid ICS 205 and the associated full comms plan. A forward-deployed in the field comms tech sent out for that purpose, again I feel can best be utilized elsewhere, such as pre-deploying and setting up backup radio assets if it's an anticipated mission such as a hurricane or such, and if it's not, such as a missing plane or whatnot, he or she would be a much better fit at the local EOC passing traffic.

[NM SAR]

I've taken MRO's out on ground teams before...who had their GTM3. I would not take someone without proper gear and training out in the field, it becomes a safety concern.

I have (with my NM SAR hat on, not CAP) taken personnel into the field that aren't typical GT people, but that was to fill a very specific and very highly specialized need. People like coroners, MDs, and LEOs. A bit of baby-sitting, tailored to the person's skillset and gear, takes place. So it's not impossible, it's just that I can't come up with a scenario in which our theoretical MRO can't hand me whatever widget that needs to be operated and give me a ten minute crash course in operating it before I leave the ICP. There's not reason for the non-field-qualified MRO to get his boots muddy. The same cannot be said of a coroner or a LEO.

It's theoretically possible. I just cannot figure out why it would become a good idea.

[Private Investigator]

Has anyone seen any ground response plan that involves sending MROs with ground teams?

What part of PTT and RTL does a GTM not know?

Now I know some MROs who are GTMs too. And I know some MROs who are strictly Base Staff so YMMV   

[arajca]

Has anyone seen any ground response plan that involves sending MROs with ground teams?

What part of PTT and RTL does a GTM not know?

For more than a few, both.

Many times, I have had GTLs come into the radio room and ask us to set their radio since they didn't know how. The whole concept of changing channels is foreign to them. Then there are the teams that leave range of one repeater and don't bother to change channels so they are out of comm range until the GBD calls the GTL's cell phone. And, of course, it's comm's fault for not having a repeater with enough range.

[Eclipse]

Seen that myself - that's why we now require a full comm briefing before launching a sortie, air or ground.

The result?

Heh - not much different.  Still have MOs who can't work the radios, and GTs talking to no one, but at
least we feel better that we tried.

[Brad]

Many times, I have had GTLs come into the radio room and ask us to set their radio since they didn't know how. The whole concept of changing channels is foreign to them. Then there are the teams that leave range of one repeater and don't bother to change channels so they are out of comm range until the GBD calls the GTL's cell phone. And, of course, it's comm's fault for not having a repeater with enough range.

That's why I'm a fan of the EF Johnson 5100 FireSAFE package it offers for its latest handhelds. One radio is designated as the IC radio and the others are the ordinary radios. When fireground mode is turned on, all the radios are locked on a specific channel and volume, and turning the channel selector does nothing, even turning the volume knob completely off does nothing. This assures that everyone remains on the correct channel and that they have it turned up. Couple it with a P25 "heartbeat" module that attaches to the antenna, which alerts if you're going out of range of the IC's radio (likely could be adapted to work with a repeater) and it is a rather awesome system. I got to try it out at a fire convention one year, really impressed.

http://www.efjohnson.com/resources/dyn/files/326152zf1213cb8/_fn/FIRESAFE+-+10.12.10.pdf

[Eclipse]

That's pretty sweet - is that compatible with our existing 5100s?

I'm all for "Set and forget".

[Brad]

That's pretty sweet - is that compatible with our existing 5100s?

I'm all for "Set and forget".

Should be as far as I know, likely would need a software upgrade though. They offer a VHF model that covers our bandsplit same as the regular 5100s. I'll dig through the sheets and ask around to see if they're compliant.

[Private Investigator]

That would be a good start, having everyone on the same channel.   

[N7MOG]

I'm in favor of a MRO qualified person on each ground team.  They can suggest a best position for the vehicle to park for comms, know how to operate the radios in the vehicle, provide relay from fielded ground teams w/ISRs or 5100's back to Mission base. They might be GT qualified already and have their gear.  There sometimes is a cadet or senior member that can operate from the vehicle but not be ambulatory enough to do the field stuff, due to injuries or something else.  Every person is a valuable resource and should be used in the best capacity possible. 

[Eclipse]

I'm in favor of a MRO qualified person on each ground team.  They can suggest a best position for the vehicle to park for comms, know how to operate the radios in the vehicle, provide relay from fielded ground teams w/ISRs or 5100's back to Mission base.

Every GTM who's qual'ed should already have that knowledge based on existing tasks.

[ol'fido]

I  would not be adverse to having a non-GT senior member function as a MTO or "Mission Transportation Officer" who would have a CAP DL, MRO, and UDF qualifications who would operate the van as a "chauffeur" for the GT on missions when we have trouble scraping together the bare minimum four bodies for the GT. I like the idea of having someone remain with the vehicle for emergencies, radio relay, and to move to pick up the team if their egress point from and search area is different than their entry point. Ex. GT begins trail search at point A which is the parking lot of a trailhead. During the search one of the team members injures a leg. The team is 4-5 miles from point A but there is secondary trailhead 1/4 mile away. GT contacts the vehicle and has themselves picked up at the secondary trailhead.

This would also mean that the GTL can focus on navigation, communication, and last minute details while the MTO concentrates on getting the team to its search area safely.

During extreme weather, having a vehicle that is already warm or cool as the case may be is a great morale booster to a team that is slogging back to it when it is sleeting or the heat index is hovering just under "black flag".

Granted there is nothing here that cannot be handled by a trained GT member and if you have the extra bodies available to do that, I have no problem with keeping it to GT qualified members only. This solution would only come in to play if you have only the bare minimum four bodies available for the GT.

I do not see a problem with someone in this position who is not GT qualified but has the quals stated above being able to take care of themselves in the field. At least not in my AO which is mostly rural as it is.

[Eclipse]

I do not see a problem with someone in this position who is not GT qualified but has the quals stated above being able to take care of themselves in the field. At least not in my AO which is mostly rural as it is.

Who feeds and shelters this guy when things go fubar? 

Or is he the food source.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Eclipse-

I guess the members proposing the MRO drive the ground team van will shelter in the van if something goes FUBAR.



Maybe for this reason we should also push to have the MRO changed to include a 24-hour and 72-hour bags for the MRO. 

[Sarcasm]

Flyer

[ol'fido]

I do not see a problem with someone in this position who is not GT qualified but has the quals stated above being able to take care of themselves in the field. At least not in my AO which is mostly rural as it is.

Who feeds and shelters this guy when things go fubar? 

Or is he the food source.

I find your line of reasoning quite odd. Are you trying to say that an adult member of CAP who can otherwise function as a driver, MRO, and UDF member cannot possibly fathom the needs for staying in a van over the course of a ground team sortie and prepare accordingly? Even if said sortie lasts overnight? I find that bizarre. Most of the CAP members I know of would find this less than daunting. Most would have little or no problem with it. It isn't rocket science.  Common sense and camping skills must be rare things where you live.

[Eclipse]

We're not talking about "common sense anything".

CAP accepts the liability for the actions of members who are trained and qualified in a standardized way for specific duties.

GTs, such that they are, train and equip with the assumption that they are self-sufficient in the field, and in an emergency can
shelter in place, in relative "comfort", should the need arise.  Meaning essentially they will not starve, or die of dehydration, etc.
Neither UDF nor MRO train for these scenarios, do not carry that equipment, and are not expected to work under field conditions,
and CAP would be well within it's reasonable rights to disavow protections if people ignore the rules or choose to
make up their own and deploy people in the field who aren't at least minimally qualified at a CAP GTM.

Putting other CAP members into the field, without this training and equipment means they become a mission limiting factor
and a liability to the rest of the team should that emergency present itself.  In terms of what they have shown they can do to the
satisfaction of CAP, they are unable to navigate, setup a shelter, perform search functions, or any of the other field skills a GT
is supposed to do.  What they have shown they can do is operate a radio.  Period, and CAP GTs are already capable of doing that.

As soon as you suggest they carry that equipment, you're turning them into GTs, which is what they should be anyway.

The fact that a given CAP member might be capable or prepared is irrelevant in the paradigm of our training and
qualification.  If you are short-handed on qualified people, you don't make up new titles to skirt the regs, you
train up to have people properly qualified.

[ol'fido]

You're right.

You're not talking about common sense anything.


"CAP accepts the liability for the actions of members who are trained and qualified in a standardized way for specific duties."

And I suggested specific training and duties. I did not suggest some ad hoc let's forget the rules solution. MTO would be a qual just as GTM or GTL. It could be a "stand alone" qual for older or less mobile members or a "gateway" qual for GT. No one is suggesting that this person would work in the field with the GT other than in the narrow confines I suggested when I put forth the idea. If they exceeded the bounds of their lane, CAP would be right to refuse indemnification just as if the same said GT exceeded their authority such as when securing a crash site.

Navigating, setting up shelter, and digging a slit trench are the only real tasks required of GTs that would technically fall under what I would call "field skills". We aren't exactly stretching the boundaries of "campcraft and survival skills" with those tasks. If there were more to it, your point might be valid. As it is, most GTs are little more prepared to survive in the wilderness than the guy you send to get donuts for mission base.


"As soon as you suggest they carry that equipment, you're turning them into GTs, which is what they should be anyway."

So if this is really all that separates a GT from anyone else, then let's make 24 and 72 hour packs mandatory for all personnel. That way we could eliminate the argument altogether.

"The fact that a given CAP member might be capable or prepared is irrelevant in the paradigm of our training and
qualification."

The fact that a given CAP member might be capable or prepared OUGHT TO BE the paradigm of our training and qualification.

I'm not suggesting we skirt the regs. I am suggesting a change to the regs.  Training people up needs to be encouraged as well.

[Eclipse]

The fact that a given CAP member might be capable or prepared is irrelevant in the paradigm of our training and
qualification.

Chuck Yeager can't fly a 182 on a mission unless he's 5'd and 91'ed.
That's how it works.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

We also need to take into account that National appreciates our concerns here, and for some time has been working on a new type of qualification to replace the MRO. That qual will be called an RDO and will have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd levels of capability, and the CUL quals will also have three levels. This was released at the national Conference, but since then has had no forward motion taken on it, which is a bit disappointing. I'm not sure of exactly what will be in the qualification SQTR, but from my understanding they will be equipped and able to deploy out to locations and set up a deployed base station to act as a mission base or relay station...