We've got a fair amount of flooding in my wing right now - it rained hard, some streets are closed, the commute was
really bad this am because some major roadways were blocked. Basically an "inconvenience of biblical proportion".
Obviously for those directly affected it's anywhere from a PITA to legit tragedy, but it's not Sandy or Katrina by a long shot.
Basically, people in areas prone to flooding are getting flooding, the same way they do every time it rains this heavy.
Anyway...
We've gotten several requests for assistance from local municipalities in regards to sandbagging and similar duties.
We have a C-Mission from the NOC, and the call went out for a minimum of "GES, Form 60, safety currency, and a vest).
Um. What?
Under what doctrine, guidance, or authorization are we allowed to do these types of missions?
It's one thing to call for and deploy qualified Ground Teams - this is what they do, or can do, at least in as
much as they have been evaluated for a baseline ability to be relatively independent, have a required level of equipment,
and should be self-sufficient in the field. At least on paper, GT's won't become mission liabilities.
None of this is true for someone with a wet "GES and a Form 60".
No training, no gear, no documentation requirements, no supervisory requirements, not even a way to fam/prep members
before being allowed to enter the field, as with any other rating in CAP, including MSA.
I'm going to fix this in my wing, one way or another, but I don't see how NHQ can continue to look the other way while
allowing untrained, ill-prepared members to operate in potentially hazardous environments with zero qualification that
they actually belong there.
To me, we should not allow anyone without at least GTM3T to be in the field like this. That or better still we need a
"DR3" or similar with a reasonable subset of gear and training, and some briefing on what to expect and what you're allowed
and not allowed to do.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 18, 2013, 08:29:23 PM
Under what doctrine, guidance, or authorization are we allowed to do these types of missions?
One might check the federal law chartering CAP and the stated purposes of our organization:
QuoteThe purposes of the corporation are as follows:
(1) To provide an organization to—
(A) encourage and aid citizens of the United States in contributing their efforts, services, and resources in developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy; and
(B) encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare.
(2) To provide aviation education and training especially to its senior and cadet members.
(3) To encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities.
(4) To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies.
(5) To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its noncombat programs and missions.
In other words, CAP can chose to respond to any emergency for which our assistance is requested or to any other request that might benefit the public welfare.
That being said, many on this board know that I have been bemoaning for many years the lack of some sort of doctrine for ground-related operations other than SAR.
However, the lack of such a doctrine doesn't keep us from responding unless we're asked to do an activity that is specifically prohibited by our regs. Sandbagging and general grunt labor are not prohibited.
Instead of GTM3T, which does not address DR in any way, look to CERT. Either full blown by an EMA, or done in-house using the same materials.
Most DR missions I've been on do not involve any GT skills. We've done sand-bagging, tornado clean up, food service assistance, donation sorting, etc. Those are just the ones I've been involved in. You don't need any CAP training to fill sand bags or unload a truck.
GTManything doesn't provide training in damage assessment, which would be another role CAP could do. Any DR training you could give a GT when they report in could just as easily be give to a bunch of GES members, with additional benefit of not having the "I'm a GTM, not a manual laborer" attitude. Seen it, seen them sent home.
River-
I think that what Eclipse is complaining is that it appears the call went out for people that were not prepared or qualified as Ground Team Member 3. I other words, if you had a vest, GES, and a CAPF 60.
If this is the case, I side with him. You are asking for people that have never even been on a mission, not even a training mission so you do not know how they will act on a real mission.
Flyer
Let's hope Eclipse gives more details.
I have seen the same calls. After a hurricane, Group Ops requested any qualified as a GTM. His CC countermanded him with GES, safety current. Not even anything like UDF nor with CERT nor whether they had been on a mission.
Flyer
That sounds great on paper (both figuratively and practically), but doesn't fly in th conservative culture which is CAP.
If anything, it runs 180 counter to the normal notion of "if it doesn't say you can't, you can",
and I don't know how we'd defend ourselves in a hearing room in the event that a member is injured, or hurts someone else.
"So, are we to understand that during the course of a mission, members are required to have special training to process base check-ins, but you allowed members to work in the field near a
dangerous flooding situation with no particular training or evaluation of capability?"
Flooded areas, for example, are going to be prone to downed power lines, stalled vehicles, rapidly outflow of water, not to mention
what happens if a levy or bag-wall breeches. Heck, if nothing else we should be shoeing the proper way to pick up a 20-lb sandbag load.
I can't send an unqualified adult to do ramp checks at an airport on a sunny day, but it's OK to allow untrained cadets to throw sand in a DR?
Or help at a shelter? Hand out food, etc?
The ARC would never allow that, and they do this a lot more then CAP does.
Eclipse-
During floods, sometimes the water pressure in sewers push the manhole covers away. You are walking unexpectedly, and can have an accident or maybe even fall into one of these holes...
Flyer
Quote from: Eclipse on April 18, 2013, 08:29:23 PM
None of this is true for someone with a wet "GES and a Form 60".
No training, no gear, no documentation requirements, no supervisory requirements, not even a way to fam/prep members
before being allowed to enter the field, as with any other rating in CAP, including MSA.
I completely agree with you. Personnel with GES only should help in a support capacity, within a non-hazardous environment only.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 18, 2013, 08:29:23 PM
To me, we should not allow anyone without at least GTM3T to be in the field like this. That or better still we need a
"DR3" or similar with a reasonable subset of gear and training, and some briefing on what to expect and what you're allowed
and not allowed to do.
I would support such training and qualification. However, there's another qualification available in CAP that doesn't seem to be used that much: CERT. I realize that CERT is not a CAP-specific qualification and that training must be done through appropriate CERT Teams or other qualified personnel/agencies. But, why do we give credit in CAP for this qualification if it's not going to be used? Why not train CAP members to be CERT instructors to provide this training within CAP? I'm not opposed to a "DR3" qualification, but coming up with the requirements and appropriate training curriculum/task guide would probably take longer and require more effort that using the CERT qualification. Is there a good reason this may not be feasible?
I agree that GT, in and of itself, doesn't address DR very well. It is really only useful on the level of self-sufficiency and adaptation to working in the field.
There is most certainly a level of training which is appropriate for this, likely something from
the ARC, FEMA, or similar. I'm not sure CERT is any more (or less) adaptable for this type of thing.
The point is that in a lot of these case, we have members who cannot be bothered the rest of the
year to be invested in the totality of the ES mindset, which is a lot more than "help today",
and yet we put out the "all hands" call because people want to get involved.
We're purport to be a structured, non-vigilantesque organization, yet we have this huge hole
in our response framework.
The last thing I would suggest is that this be anything onerous, or rely on outside training or curriculm, but it needs to be more then "gravitational attraction and respiration" as it is today.
Quote from: flyer333555 on April 18, 2013, 08:52:38 PM
Eclipse-
During floods, sometimes the water pressure in sewers push the manhole covers away. You are walking unexpectedly, and can have an accident or maybe even fall into one of these holes...
Flyer
I was telling my kids that exact thing earlier as they discussed walking through a flooded intersection.
Add a walking stick to the safety vest gear? :)
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 18, 2013, 08:54:19 PMI'm not opposed to a "DR3" qualification, but coming up with the requirements and appropriate training curriculum/task guide would probably take longer and require more effort that using the CERT qualification. Is there a good reason this may not be feasible?
Actually, there is no reason individual wings cannot establish their own doctrine and training requirements for DR response. Absent
something from NHQ, that is exactly what we will likely do.
The issue with CERT is that it would be generally reliant on outside agencies, and likely viewed as "one more gateway" to ES, whereas establishing some
reasonable training requirements that could be covered at the unit level by the ESO would not really be a big deal. I'd guess it could be generally
cobbled together from a few existing tasks along with some DR training content freely available on the web.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on April 18, 2013, 08:59:06 PM
Add a walking stick to the safety vest gear? :)
Must have a compass and sword.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 18, 2013, 09:00:36 PM
Actually, there is no reason individual wings cannot establish their own doctrine and training requirements for DR response. Absent something from NHQ, that is exactly what we will likely do.
That makes sense since DR requirements could be different between states, cities and other geographical areas. I would still like to see something set by National and supplemented by Wings/Groups as appropriate. Has this been addressed with NHQ already?
Quote from: Eclipse on April 18, 2013, 09:00:36 PM
The issue with CERT is that it would be generally reliant on outside agencies, and likely viewed as "one more gateway" to ES, whereas establishing some reasonable training requirements that could be covered at the unit level by the ESO would not really be a big deal. I'd guess it could be generally cobbled together from a few existing tasks along with some DR training content freely available on the web.
Fair enough. Having control over the training and qualification process makes sense too. But I've never understood the purpose of the CERT qualification within CAP; that's why I asked the question.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 18, 2013, 09:23:22 PMFair enough. Having control over the training and qualification process makes sense too. But I've never understood the purpose of the CERT qualification within CAP; that's why I asked the question.
There isn't one. CERT was added a few years ago to OPS Quals in anticipation of CAP extending their ES scope into this area. To date it hasn't done that.
Entering a CERT cert (see what I did there?) into OPS Quals serves very little purpose.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 18, 2013, 09:07:26 PMMust have a compass and sword.
With rotating beacon and Personal EPIRB.
I don't think we need to go as far as GTM3 to go on a DR mission. I've been on a couple of dozen sandbagging, storm clean up, and DR type missions here in Southern Illinois through my work and with CAP( a few). For the most part, it does not take the skill level of a GTM3 to accomplish. If you were going to a Katrina type event, then yes, GTM3 as a minimum would probably be appropriate. But for sandbagging and most DR activities( clean up, water and food distribution, transport) few if any special skills are needed. We would to take 40 or 50 inmates down to the area of a flood, give them a pile of sand, and a few thousand sand bags and then tell them to get it done. Long days but no real hazards. Our inmates(IDOC Boot Camp) are mainly 17-25 year olds with few if any skills or training and we haven't had any problems other than keeping them working.
Plus, since CAP is not a first responder type organization, many of the immediate hazards during and immediately after would already have been mitigated. In addition, most competent ICs in these situations will not put untrained individuals in areas where there could be a hazard. They realize that they are responsible for the health and safety of the mostly untrained volunteers that they get at these types of situations. Where you are going to run into problems is with small scale emergencies run by a small local fire or police department chief. Some of these guys are great and some of them are the mayor's cousin. Having a senior member along who can recognize when and where CAP can help and when it's time to say, "I don't think so" when asked to put his people in a potentially hazardous situation or area is key.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't give some basic training to anyone who goes on any kind of DR mission. I also believe thatwhen CAP says go do DR. We ask"What's that mean?". "It depends..." seems to be the working doctrine. Competent senior leadership is the key. For the rest of the team, I would say that some sort of basic training would be sufficient.
In summary, I think we need a more informative doctrine for CAP's DR mission contributions and an organized response framework.
We (ARC) use unsolicited/spont/episodic volunteers for a lot of things and often times provide very little training depending on the position and role. Our standing rule is we can use them for 7 days until a BGC is required. We can also use youth/cadets except for sending them out of state. They cannot provide direct services to elderly or children alone and cannot function without supervision, be left in dormitories overnight, or allowed to handle any kind of financial instruments until a background check (ours) clears. Aside from those rules we can use them as needed for up to 7 days. CAP could be a strong asset as a partner to fed/state/local/NGOs.
This is part of why I think CAP needs to rebuild emphasis on DR work. As a former EM Director and CERT TTT, I also think CERT is a joke, misused for funding, and we aren't even going to open that can of worms. In situations such as using members for sandbagging, traffic control points, entrance/egress, runners for EOC/IC, multiple roles, etc.
During the 98 Floods in KY we did sandbagging throughout the entire state. In the Battlefield/Republic, MO Tornado in 2003, they were used to deliver water, food, bulk items, etc while firefighters such as myself did SAR and tasked missions.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 18, 2013, 08:47:28 PM
That sounds great on paper (both figuratively and practically), but doesn't fly in th conservative culture which is CAP.
If anything, it runs 180 counter to the normal notion of "if it doesn't say you can't, you can",
and I don't know how we'd defend ourselves in a hearing room in the event that a member is injured, or hurts someone else.
"So, are we to understand that during the course of a mission, members are required to have special training to process base check-ins, but you allowed members to work in the field near a
dangerous flooding situation with no particular training or evaluation of capability?"
Flooded areas, for example, are going to be prone to downed power lines, stalled vehicles, rapidly outflow of water, not to mention
what happens if a levy or bag-wall breeches. Heck, if nothing else we should be shoeing the proper way to pick up a 20-lb sandbag load.
I can't send an unqualified adult to do ramp checks at an airport on a sunny day, but it's OK to allow untrained cadets to throw sand in a DR?
Or help at a shelter? Hand out food, etc?
The ARC would never allow that, and they do this a lot more then CAP does.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 18, 2013, 08:29:23 PM
We've got a fair amount of flooding in my wing right now - it rained hard, some streets are closed, the commute was
really bad this am because some major roadways were blocked. Basically an "inconvenience of biblical proportion".
Obviously for those directly affected it's anywhere from a PITA to legit tragedy, but it's not Sandy or Katrina by a long shot.
Basically, people in areas prone to flooding are getting flooding, the same way they do every time it rains this heavy.
We feel your pain.
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/921214_10151599173490730_413445808_o.jpg) (https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/921214_10151599173490730_413445808_o.jpg)
Quote from: flyer333555 on April 18, 2013, 08:42:39 PM
You are asking for people that have never even been on a mission, not even a training mission so you do not know how they will act on a real mission.
Well, we have GES as a qualification for a reason. Remember what it stands for GENERAL EMERGENCY SERVICES. Sounds to me that in this situation CAP was asked to perform General ES tasks.
Yes, there are some specific safety issues for this sort of mission, but those can be addressed by the mission safety brief.
It isn't possible to "train" for most of these sorts of tasks, so GES is good enough for me.
My larger area of agreement with Eclipse is that CAP should probably generally be aiming to be more useful in these situations than just providing grunt labor. Our overall lack of doctrine means that no one from the squadron to NHQ really knows what we WANT to do or SHOULD be doing so we end up generally not being asked to do anything or just given some random assignments.
Although sometimes grunt labor is exactly what is needed and there isn't anything wrong with doing it.
So this is the relevent part of GES that I think is important:
CAPR 60-3, Page 2, 23-e
"The General Emergency Services specialty rating is required of all individuals qualifying in emergency
services and will be completed prior to commencing training for any other specialty. This
training authorizes members to attend missions, observe activities and perform administrative
and general operations support tasks under the direction of qualified staff personnel, essentially
as a license to learn".
And this is the verbiege used to justify how we're doing things today:
CAPR 60-3, Page 2, 23-g
"g. There are some duty positions that CAP does not have specific specialty qualifications
identified. Any CAP IC can appoint any GES qualified member to fill these gaps in order to
meet the needs of the mission, but must use good judgment to select personnel who have the
appropriate training and backgrounds to be able to successfully complete their assignment."
Quote from: RiverAux on April 19, 2013, 02:52:06 AM
My larger area of agreement with Eclipse is that CAP should probably generally be aiming to be more useful in these situations than just providing grunt labor. Our overall lack of doctrine means that no one from the squadron to NHQ really knows what we WANT to do or SHOULD be doing so we end up generally not being asked to do anything or just given some random assignments.
LTC Don can speak with more authority about this than I can, but NCWG has carved out a niche by training for and operating FEMA Points of Distribution in North Carolina. Check out the Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/pages/NC-Wing-CAP-Disaster-Services-Points-of-Distribution/158297104219689) and the NCWG website (https://www.ncwgcap.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.display&pageID=438) for more details.
We've actually had some discussions recently with a local agency in regards to doing POD as well. Seems like a potential good fit, but no way I'd put
anything but highly experienced adult members with at least a GTM badge in that position.
in re: CERT
I've a CERT qualification, and have done the course a few times. During the last time, the instructor of the local EMA said that FEMA was eliminating the CERT courses. Anyone else have confirmation of this?
Quote from: jimmydeanno on April 19, 2013, 04:34:38 AM
in re: CERT
I've a CERT qualification, and have done the course a few times. During the last time, the instructor of the local EMA said that FEMA was eliminating the CERT courses. Anyone else have confirmation of this?
Never heard of it. In my city, we just had a new CERT class graduation ceremony last week.
Even if a local CERT is never deployed, it still has its value as a systematic education to citizens. It is all about being better prepared vs not prepared at all during a disaster.
The thing with CERT I see as an issue is that we have to get it through an outside agency. Its not a 2 hour course. Its around 30-ish total IIRC. Most members are already busy with their CAP duties and life in general, so taking the time to do an additional 5-6 week course can be problematic.
I could see us using the basic CERT curriculum and developing our own DR3 type of qual. We could probably eliminate some of their coursework, too, as it would be redundant and/or not within CAP's scope anyway.
My former Group CC made another good point a few years ago about being both CERT & CAP: which group take priority? If you're going to be part of the local CERT group, and something comes up that both CAP & CERT might be needed, where do you go? Both organizations are counting on you. I know that the probability isn't very high that this could happen, but neither are many of the things we train for.
Quote from: Walkman on April 19, 2013, 01:40:17 PMMy former Group CC made another good point a few years ago about being both CERT & CAP: which group take priority? If you're going to be part of the local CERT group, and something comes up that both CAP & CERT might be needed, where do you go? Both organizations are counting on you. I know that the probability isn't very high that this could happen, but neither are many of the things we train for.
This is a legitimate issue, especially in DR, which is decidedly local, especially if you're talking CERT.
A CAP's CC's first and foremost duty is to to building and maintaining his unit's readiness. I've heard CCs say things like "I don't mind if members graduate to another service."
Well I sure do.
Suffice to say this is a topic we are discussing at the staff level right now, with hopes to coming to some sort of reasonable conclusion.
One Commander I spoke with commented that there is no reason CAP needs to be involved in these types of situations. Since filling sandbags
takes no particular skill or equipment, why even involve the organization, officially? There's no reason members can't simply go on their own recognizance
in street cloths unbeholden to CAP.
Frankly we offer little in this realm, specifically, beyond a call list and a potential labor pool, and the need to get a mission number, etc., just delays our response.
CAPR 60-3 states that cap members participating in a CAP sanctioned mission must stay under the control of a CAP IC. This is problematic when dealing with CERT as CERT is a local community response and not a necessarily a CAP controlled response. How do I as an IC control CAP's resources, if I am not even aware of the taskings they are given? Eclispse, is correct in stating that we need to look into how we respond to DR missions in more detail. Especially since those types of mission are more likely to occurr in our future than traditional SAR.
They have all but quit training/offering Train the Trainer. Most of the existing CERT instructors are no longer teaching.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on April 19, 2013, 04:34:38 AM
in re: CERT
I've a CERT qualification, and have done the course a few times. During the last time, the instructor of the local EMA said that FEMA was eliminating the CERT courses. Anyone else have confirmation of this?
I do agree with this point; however, it is hard to identify the return on investment (ROI) for preparedness which makes it hard to spend the money. CERT is also abused as a funding source for stuff an agency could not acquire otherwise.
Quote from: vento on April 19, 2013, 05:51:07 AM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on April 19, 2013, 04:34:38 AM
in re: CERT
I've a CERT qualification, and have done the course a few times. During the last time, the instructor of the local EMA said that FEMA was eliminating the CERT courses. Anyone else have confirmation of this?
Never heard of it. In my city, we just had a new CERT class graduation ceremony last week.
Even if a local CERT is never deployed, it still has its value as a systematic education to citizens. It is all about being better prepared vs not prepared at all during a disaster.
Quote from: Larry Mangum on April 19, 2013, 02:30:03 PM
CAPR 60-3 states that cap members participating in a CAP sanctioned mission must stay under the control of a CAP IC. This is problematic when dealing with CERT as CERT is a local community response and not a necessarily a CAP controlled response. How do I as an IC control CAP's resources, if I am not even aware of the taskings they are given? Eclispse, is correct in stating that we need to look into how we respond to DR missions in more detail. Especially since those types of mission are more likely to occurr in our future than traditional SAR.
Well, from that angle, CAP members are always under the auspices and command of a CAP IC. That doesn't mean we are >the< IC, but we never deploy people
without a mission number, etc., which means they always have at least on-paper oversight.
Aside from ICS 100, 200, 700, 800, IS-244.b: Developing and Managing Volunteers, and IS-288: Role of Voluntary Agencies in Emergency Management; on the job training for specific purposes by a specific agency usually covers anything else. I don't think there is a lot of additional training we need to require to get in the DR realm.
Quote from: Walkman on April 19, 2013, 01:40:17 PM
The thing with CERT I see as an issue is that we have to get it through an outside agency. Its not a 2 hour course. Its around 30-ish total IIRC. Most members are already busy with their CAP duties and life in general, so taking the time to do an additional 5-6 week course can be problematic.
I could see us using the basic CERT curriculum and developing our own DR3 type of qual. We could probably eliminate some of their coursework, too, as it would be redundant and/or not within CAP's scope anyway.
My former Group CC made another good point a few years ago about being both CERT & CAP: which group take priority? If you're going to be part of the local CERT group, and something comes up that both CAP & CERT might be needed, where do you go? Both organizations are counting on you. I know that the probability isn't very high that this could happen, but neither are many of the things we train for.
I think this takes away from the contributions that CAP has made in disaster relief to major relief such as Katrina, Sandy, etc. By having CAP represented it shows the versatility of CAP, its members, and it also provides opportunities for both cadets and seniors to be involved real world. This may be the only way that our cadets could be involved (many agencies have no youth programs or opportunities). There are many ways our members can be used as part of a credible, credentialed, trained organization (known to local, state, fed organizations ahead of time), whereas as an individual spontaneous volunteer may never participate. By developing a DR role it also covers our members with insurance should they be injured.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2013, 02:22:04 PM
Suffice to say this is a topic we are discussing at the staff level right now, with hopes to coming to some sort of reasonable conclusion.
One Commander I spoke with commented that there is no reason CAP needs to be involved in these types of situations. Since filling sandbags
takes no particular skill or equipment, why even involve the organization, officially? There's no reason members can't simply go on their own recognizance
in street cloths unbeholden to CAP.
Frankly we offer little in this realm, specifically, beyond a call list and a potential labor pool, and the need to get a mission number, etc., just delays our response.
I would say the training would need to be offline, practical assessments of a member's ability to remain calm and work in "other-than-normal stress" environments.
They should also include some minimal gear such as uniform, food / water, cell phone / radio, gloves, boots, etc., etc.
Again, self-sufficiency and not becoming a mission liability being the key.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2013, 03:39:39 PM
I would say the training would need to be offline, practical assessments of a member's ability to remain calm and work in "other-than-normal stress" environments.
They should also include some minimal gear such as uniform, food / water, cell phone / radio, gloves, boots, etc., etc.
Again, self-sufficiency and not becoming a mission liability being the key.
Totally agree.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2013, 02:22:04 PM
One Commander I spoke with commented that there is no reason CAP needs to be involved in these types of situations. Since filling sandbags takes no particular skill or equipment, why even involve the organization, officially? There's no reason members can't simply go on their own recognizance in street cloths unbeholden to CAP.
Frankly we offer little in this realm, specifically, beyond a call list and a potential labor pool, and the need to get a mission number, etc., just delays our response.
I think a potential labor pool can be a huge assets and shouldn't be dismissed lightly. I do agree that some members wouldn't be suited for some of these ops, but I think most EMs would welcome a group of volunteers like us over your citizen-at-large showing up.
There are some outside benefits for showing up as a group in uniform as well.
Who are you guys?
We're Civil Air Patrol Squadron 007.
What's that?
We're the Official Auxiliary of the USAF...elevator speech.
That's cool, can I join?The other though that keeps running in my mind about this subject is not just showing up at an event, but the importance of becoming integrated into the area EMA community. We should be training with these other agencies during their drills. Back to the CERT thing: I attended a local CERT group meeting once as an ESTO just to see how my unit could interact with them. They had a comms exercise that night and sitting in the ops center, I could tell they really needed help on how to use radios. We could come in as guest trainers for things like that as well.
Hey Billy, what did you do yesterday?
I got to play an injured earthquake victim while the Fire Department and Police Force practice some emergency drills.We see that in some areas, UDF and ground ops are becoming fewer and farther between, IMO anything we can do to keep our ground pounders active and involved in real world work is a plus.
Agree 100%. A well trained and credentialed labor force is of extreme value. As a former EM I was able to apply an agency's volunteer hours (During the Christmas winter storm, the state of AR used our ARC services and applied over 1,000 man hours @ $ 16.77/hr http://www.independentsector.org/volunteer_time (http://www.independentsector.org/volunteer_time). This monetary amount was able to be counted towards the state's 25% match of the cost of the disaster. In the grand scheme of a multi million dollar disaster $16,770 may not seem like a lot; however it was money the state did not have to pay. CAP could be providing the exact same kind of contribution to political jurisdictions all around the US. I agree 100% about offering subject matter expertise to outside groups and I see a tremendous amount of potential for DR in ES. We most likely have hundreds to thousands of GT trained members who do not get to use their skill often enough. This is a way for real world experience, exposure, etc as we know disasters are going to happen regularly-espec. natural disasters.
CAP is what started me down the path of becoming a SARTECH, Emergency Trauma Tech, State Vol FF, EMT-B, Firefighter I and II, Paramedic, EM Director, and into my position as a Red Cross Disaster Manager. My time as a Cadet and performing ES and SAR started it for me. I think this kind of experience opens the door and provides a chance for cadets to experience a variety of opportunity and for some, the start of a professional career.
[/quote]
I think a potential labor pool can be a huge assets and shouldn't be dismissed lightly. I do agree that some members wouldn't be suited for some of these ops, but I think most EMs would welcome a group of volunteers like us over your citizen-at-large showing up.
There are some outside benefits for showing up as a group in uniform as well.
Who are you guys?
We're Civil Air Patrol Squadron 007.
What's that?
We're the Official Auxiliary of the USAF...elevator speech.
That's cool, can I join?
The other though that keeps running in my mind about this subject is not just showing up at an event, but the importance of becoming integrated into the area EMA community. We should be training with these other agencies during their drills. Back to the CERT thing: I attended a local CERT group meeting once as an ESTO just to see how my unit could interact with them. They had a comms exercise that night and sitting in the ops center, I could tell they really needed help on how to use radios. We could come in as guest trainers for things like that as well.
Hey Billy, what did you do yesterday?
I got to play an injured earthquake victim while the Fire Department and Police Force practice some emergency drills.
We see that in some areas, UDF and ground ops are becoming fewer and farther between, IMO anything we can do to keep our ground pounders active and involved in real world work is a plus.
[/quote]
Quote from: Jaison009 on April 19, 2013, 06:21:05 PM
Agree 100%. A well trained and credentialed labor force is of extreme value.
No way to argue with that, but the duty has to considered. In this case, completely unskilled vigilanteers are generally used, with no issues, and to service their own neighborhoods and towns.
In a lot of missing persons searches, local authorities are perfectly happy to yell out the window for people to come and tromp all over the evidence when they are trying to find someone.
As to funds, there's a lot of reason I want to get CAP more involved systematically with DR, but whether a customer can use our volunteer time to get a grant for themselves, while our people have to pay for their own gas, isn't even on the radar.
CAP could do much more than unskilled though. You mentioned PODs earlier. As you know there is a lot of issues with setting up, securing, maintaining, running, and breaking down PODs. If CAP was taught how to run a POD and maintained a relationship with the EM, this could be an easy mission. It also provides credibility with local gvmt. If I was an EM and instead of having to continually trained new people to do PODs, I tasked it to a local trained and credentialed agency (who maintains training, exercises with locals, etc, etc) then when it is time to open a POD, I call the local group and it gets done with a phone call is this not better than unsolicited and untrained volunteers? In some areas CERT has specific missions like running sign in tables, helping with staging, setting up media tents, etc. Why could CAP not fill specific missions and train for those? Those are the kind of niches CAP could fill and be skilled in. We could work with local ARES and RACES groups to be part of the communications infrastructure. We could work with ARC, Salvation Army, Southern Baptist, Mennonites, Mormons, Methodist, Childrens Disaster Service, Tzu Chi, Jewish Disaster Relief, National Guard, etc and help provide and augment services.
I agree 100% about people not seeking trained searchers and destroying the evidence. Is CAP a primary SAR agency in your area? Here in AR they are not. Many counties have their own teams and CAP is not even part of the question and rarely mentioned. In a rapid needs assessment class I took this year, I had to explain how CAP could be used and several made comments such as "are they still around" "what is CAP" "Do I have one of those near me". I have been part of some major searches where CAP was never called or asked to play. In fact they brought in outside resources and mounted patrols. I think to some degree this is due to our lack of exposure and the fact that we do not work with local and state resources enough. We have a niche with DF/UDF as most teams do not have a clue about it. When it comes to true SAR I think we could harder to be a resource than we do.
As for funding, I was not refering to a grant rather to a federal disaster declaration where states and counties are left with 25% of the total disaster cost paid for through budgets from income for services and local and state taxes (which our members also pay). At the same time CAP could seek reimbursement from the federal government through the disaster declaration process (local EM does this) for their member's services, equipment used, etc. DRs could also be assigned USAF mission #s to help with funding.
I don't have the answers but I know CAP could add real value in the DR realm. We fail to realize the value we could provide. Even our DR ribbon requirements are impossible for members to earn due to the fact that the ARC does not offer several of the classes required (nor have they for several years) and most will never participate in a Pres Disaster Dec.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2013, 06:33:42 PM
Quote from: Jaison009 on April 19, 2013, 06:21:05 PM
Agree 100%. A well trained and credentialed labor force is of extreme value.
No way to argue with that, but the duty has to considered. In this case, completely unskilled vigilanteers are generally used, with no issues, and to service their own neighborhoods and towns.
In a lot of missing persons searches, local authorities are perfectly happy to yell out the window for people to come and tromp all over the evidence when they are trying to find someone.
As to funds, there's a lot of reason I want to get CAP more involved systematically with DR, but whether a customer can use our volunteer time to get a grant for themselves, while our people have to pay for their own gas, isn't even on the radar.
Quote from: Jaison009 on April 19, 2013, 07:55:45 PMDRs could also be assigned USAF mission #s to help with funding.
Could, in theory, but I have yet to see it happen. Everything I have ever been involved in DR-wise has been self or customer funded, which frankly
is probably appropriate.
Quote from: Jaison009 on April 19, 2013, 07:55:45 PM. Even our DR ribbon requirements are impossible for members to earn due to the fact that the ARC does not offer several of the classes required (nor have they for several years) and most will never participate in a Pres Disaster Dec.
These days Potus-Declared disasters are pretty common. I have 3 DR-V's, my Assistant ESO has at least 5.
FWIW, I was a fairly frequent National Guard task force commander in my day for things like fires and floods.
More often than not the Guardsmen were used as fairly unskilled labor (or at least for skills that had nothing to do with being MPs). We handed out water by the pallet-load, drove firefighters around in pickup trucks and SUVs, and filled sandbags and patrolled levees for leaks. Nothing a CAP member could not have done.
I'd like to think that our value came from simply being available (CAL EMA just calls the Governor), being self mobile/deployable, providing a uniformed presence, and having a functioning command and control element.
Again, nothing that CAP could not do, given the right pre-coordination.
Sure there were the occasional riot or security operation that required a little bit more skill and equipment, but the majority of my state active duty time taskings could easily have been done by a CAP crew at a substantial savings to the state.
Ned Lee
Former Guard Guy
Quote from: Eclipse on April 18, 2013, 08:29:23 PM
We've got a fair amount of flooding in my wing right now - it rained hard, some streets are closed, the commute was
really bad this am because some major roadways were blocked. Basically an "inconvenience of biblical proportion".
Obviously for those directly affected it's anywhere from a PITA to legit tragedy, but it's not Sandy or Katrina by a long shot.
Basically, people in areas prone to flooding are getting flooding, the same way they do every time it rains this heavy.
Anyway...
We've gotten several requests for assistance from local municipalities in regards to sandbagging and similar duties.
We have a C-Mission from the NOC, and the call went out for a minimum of "GES, Form 60, safety currency, and a vest).
Um. What?
Under what doctrine, guidance, or authorization are we allowed to do these types of missions?
Under what doctrine, guidance or authorization are we NOT allowed to do these types of missions?
Too often I see CAP too locked into "It's not in the regs". Our mission is to support our community state and nation. It's in our cadet oath and should be in our Senior Member Oath.
Get the mission done.
Quote from: flyer333555 on April 18, 2013, 08:42:39 PM
River-
I think that what Eclipse is complaining is that it appears the call went out for people that were not prepared or qualified as Ground Team Member 3. I other words, if you had a vest, GES, and a CAPF 60.
If this is the case, I side with him. You are asking for people that have never even been on a mission, not even a training mission so you do not know how they will act on a real mission.
Flyer
So?
I would put out that 90% of our GTL's and PSCs, and a lot of IC's have nver been on a mission.
Bottom line.....the community, state, or nation needed our help.....and we got people out to help. It is not rocket science...to fill sand bags, and hand out blankets.
I will openly admit that while I've been calling for a CAP ground-DR doctrine for years, I'm not really sure what I would like to see in it.
Really, I'm pretty open to just about anything, but think that CAP needs to focus down on maybe 3 specifics tasks that we should work towards being the "go-to" guys. Or, at the very least, we need to be well known for those skills so that when something happens and they flip to that part of their response binder, they see CAP as one of the options.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2013, 09:03:28 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 18, 2013, 08:29:23 PM
We've got a fair amount of flooding in my wing right now - it rained hard, some streets are closed, the commute was
really bad this am because some major roadways were blocked. Basically an "inconvenience of biblical proportion".
Obviously for those directly affected it's anywhere from a PITA to legit tragedy, but it's not Sandy or Katrina by a long shot.
Basically, people in areas prone to flooding are getting flooding, the same way they do every time it rains this heavy.
Anyway...
We've gotten several requests for assistance from local municipalities in regards to sandbagging and similar duties.
We have a C-Mission from the NOC, and the call went out for a minimum of "GES, Form 60, safety currency, and a vest).
Um. What?
Under what doctrine, guidance, or authorization are we allowed to do these types of missions?
Under what doctrine, guidance or authorization are we NOT allowed to do these types of missions?
Too often I see CAP too locked into "It's not in the regs". Our mission is to support our community state and nation. It's in our cadet oath and should be in our Senior Member Oath.
Get the mission done.
Running out the door and hoping you figure out your duties when you get there is not "getting the mission done".
Not at least for structured organizations.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2013, 09:45:19 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2013, 09:03:28 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 18, 2013, 08:29:23 PM
We've got a fair amount of flooding in my wing right now - it rained hard, some streets are closed, the commute was
really bad this am because some major roadways were blocked. Basically an "inconvenience of biblical proportion".
Obviously for those directly affected it's anywhere from a PITA to legit tragedy, but it's not Sandy or Katrina by a long shot.
Basically, people in areas prone to flooding are getting flooding, the same way they do every time it rains this heavy.
Anyway...
We've gotten several requests for assistance from local municipalities in regards to sandbagging and similar duties.
We have a C-Mission from the NOC, and the call went out for a minimum of "GES, Form 60, safety currency, and a vest).
Um. What?
Under what doctrine, guidance, or authorization are we allowed to do these types of missions?
Under what doctrine, guidance or authorization are we NOT allowed to do these types of missions?
Too often I see CAP too locked into "It's not in the regs". Our mission is to support our community state and nation. It's in our cadet oath and should be in our Senior Member Oath.
Get the mission done.
Running out the door and hoping you figure out your duties when you get there is not "getting the mission done".
Not at least for structured organizations.
When I was a fire fighter, sand bagging was not something we trained to do. When we got the call to fill sand bags and build a dike/levy/wall, we figured it out
when we got there. I believe fire depts. are "structured organizations", but I could be wrong about that.
Believe it or not, there are some tasks that are simple enough that they do not require hours of training before you can be considered "qualified" to perform.
Quote from: arajca on April 19, 2013, 09:52:34 PMWhen I was a fire fighter, sand bagging was not something we trained to do. When we got the call to fill sand bags and build a dike/levy/wall, we figured it out when we got there. I believe fire depts. are "structured organizations", but I could be wrong about that.
Believe it or not, there are some tasks that are simple enough that they do not require hours of training before you can be considered "qualified" to perform.
You can't compare being a Guardsman or a Firefighter with being a slick-sleeve GES-only cadet. In either case, and 100 others, you were
adults, had a baseline of training with an emphasis on safety, and also knew what you weren't allowed to do.
Why? Because you're already a
Guardsman,
Firefighter, etc.
This isn't about taking someone who is already a proven resource and aiming them at a duty with no specific definition, this is about taking
wholly unproven members and aiming them at tasks with no specific definitions.
Clearly putting sand in a bag isn't mentally tasking (though everyone who just read that sentence can point to one person who could show up
and make the entire situation a C-F, whether it's through attitude / behavior, or just being completely lights out), but sandbagging becomes
shelter ops, which becomes passing out food, which becomes door-to-door checks, which then becomes a group of untrained, loosely supervised
cadets with one adult wandering around a DA after dark.
How do we know this will happen? Experience. We have a pretty clear, rigid set of rules for GT and Air ops, and despite that we still
have goobers who get "creative", putting themselves, the organization, and most importantly the mission, at risk.
The real issue here is the idea that
substantially untrained individuals (civilians, remember), with nothing more then a single online test, can be allowed to function
in a potentially hazardous environment.
We're literally more concerned about anti-hazing training (90 mandatory, in-face minutes for every activity) then we are with baseline ES training.
For the record, in the case that brought us here, a handful of members with legit experience setup an ICP, directed operations, and generally
impressed the heck out of the customer. Good on them, but the risk for it to go sideways was, and is still there. Perhaps the "answer" in the supervision -
allow GES-only members to come out as resources, but require qualified GBDs and GTLs to act as team leads and field supervisors.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2013, 09:45:19 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2013, 09:03:28 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 18, 2013, 08:29:23 PM
We've got a fair amount of flooding in my wing right now - it rained hard, some streets are closed, the commute was
really bad this am because some major roadways were blocked. Basically an "inconvenience of biblical proportion".
Obviously for those directly affected it's anywhere from a PITA to legit tragedy, but it's not Sandy or Katrina by a long shot.
Basically, people in areas prone to flooding are getting flooding, the same way they do every time it rains this heavy.
Anyway...
We've gotten several requests for assistance from local municipalities in regards to sandbagging and similar duties.
We have a C-Mission from the NOC, and the call went out for a minimum of "GES, Form 60, safety currency, and a vest).
Um. What?
Under what doctrine, guidance, or authorization are we allowed to do these types of missions?
Under what doctrine, guidance or authorization are we NOT allowed to do these types of missions?
Too often I see CAP too locked into "It's not in the regs". Our mission is to support our community state and nation. It's in our cadet oath and should be in our Senior Member Oath.
Get the mission done.
Running out the door and hoping you figure out your duties when you get there is not "getting the mission done".
Not at least for structured organizations.
Answering the call from your govenor for "able bodied assistance" is! It's not rocket science. No one is "rushing out the door" NO ONE.....I repeat NO ONE has a "Sand Bag Filler" SQRT! You need one guy who know what he is doing and 50 people with strong backs.
When the State Calls for help...."Sorry we're not qualified to do that" is not going to get you called a second time......even if it is something you are qualified for.
Several outside influences affect CAP's DR response:
1. Scale. As Bob said, POTUS declared disasters are pretty common. But a lot more DR mission responses will depend on the scale. That means it could involve a village, town, city, township, county, state, or federal entities. So you are dealing with a bunch of different skill levels, monetary resources, and logistical abilities. The variables in this are daunting to list let alone plan for. You could have a major disaster in a small town or a relatively minor one in a large city. How does CAP ramp up or down it's response. We don't have "prepackaged" task forces or a protocol for deploying them.
2. Customer Perception. One of my squadron commanders is involved with a county EMA down here in Southern Illinois. From what he has told me from his discussions with other local emergency managers, many of them either don't know about CAP or they see us as the generic term "Feds" and they don't want the "Feds" coming in and telling them what to do. If CAP is going to get heavily and seriously into DR we need to educate and inform our customers or there won't be any need to worry about training.
3. Utilization. How should CAP be utilized in a disaster? What skill sets and abilities does CAP offer that an IC can justify going to the trouble of getting a formal request approved to use us that he can't get from walk-up volunteers. If we can't bring anything more to the table than the walk-ups, will we be worth the trouble. Before we worry about training, maybe we should figure out what we need to train for.
4. Investment. I like to help and be of service to my community. If I didn't, I wouldn't be involved in ES. I like the idea of being able to bring a little relief to those who have had their world turned upside down. But how much is CAP going to invest in upgrading our DR capabilities before the disaster happens. When disasters happen, state and federal funds will often become available for the asking. I've personally collected several thousand dollars in overtime pay for cleaning up after disasters through my work. Eclipse worked the first week or so of the 2009 IceQuake in NW KY with CAP. I worked for about six weeks after cleaning up the debris in the small southern Illinois towns just across the river through my job. My point is how much is CAP going to invest before hand to beef up our DR capabilities when we are often scrounging for funds to accomplish our SAR missions and other CP and AE prgrams. Will FEMA or state agencies provide these fund?
Quote from: Jaison009 on April 19, 2013, 07:55:45 PM
CAP could do much more than unskilled though. You mentioned PODs earlier. As you know there is a lot of issues with setting up, securing, maintaining, running, and breaking down PODs. If CAP was taught how to run a POD and maintained a relationship with the EM, this could be an easy mission. It also provides credibility with local gvmt. If I was an EM and instead of having to continually trained new people to do PODs, I tasked it to a local trained and credentialed agency (who maintains training, exercises with locals, etc, etc) then when it is time to open a POD, I call the local group and it gets done with a phone call is this not better than unsolicited and untrained volunteers?
See my previous post here: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=17289.msg311338#msg311338 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=17289.msg311338#msg311338)
NCWG has done all of that, and the end result has been that CAP = POD in the state of North Carolina. Other organizations assist once they have been setup (I have cadets that STILL talk about a National Guard sergeant that told his troops to listen to them because they were the "experts" in POD operations), but the only non-CAP personnel needed when a POD is lit up is uniformed law-enforcement (usually one cop in a conspicuously placed squad car) to help deter any unruly behavior.
Hokie your post is exactly what I am an advocate for. Carve/Find a niche, become experts, become the asset.
Quote from: NC Hokie on April 20, 2013, 01:33:06 AM
Quote from: Jaison009 on April 19, 2013, 07:55:45 PM
CAP could do much more than unskilled though. You mentioned PODs earlier. As you know there is a lot of issues with setting up, securing, maintaining, running, and breaking down PODs. If CAP was taught how to run a POD and maintained a relationship with the EM, this could be an easy mission. It also provides credibility with local gvmt. If I was an EM and instead of having to continually trained new people to do PODs, I tasked it to a local trained and credentialed agency (who maintains training, exercises with locals, etc, etc) then when it is time to open a POD, I call the local group and it gets done with a phone call is this not better than unsolicited and untrained volunteers?
See my previous post here: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=17289.msg311338#msg311338 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=17289.msg311338#msg311338)
NCWG has done all of that, and the end result has been that CAP = POD in the state of North Carolina. Other organizations assist once they have been setup (I have cadets that STILL talk about a National Guard sergeant that told his troops to listen to them because they were the "experts" in POD operations), but the only non-CAP personnel needed when a POD is lit up is uniformed law-enforcement (usually one cop in a conspicuously placed squad car) to help deter any unruly behavior.
This is in response to mission being discussed. First of all cadets either trained or GES were always under supervision and there was a mix of qualified GTL, GTM3, GTM3-T as well as GES. Many of the GES cadets were in training for GTM3 but had not completed all the tasks to be considered GTM3-T. Some cadets were told to delay their departure from home until it was known that there would be supervision at the forward base. Before being transported to the sandbagging areas all participants were given a safety brief and reminded of the hazards they might encounter. Even if they were trained why would they need a 24 hour pack to just weigh them down. All were advised to be in uniform, wear gloves and a safety vest, have a flash light, water and some light snack while in the field. The chance that they would get lost and need their survival gear was minimal. The forward base had a GBD-T who insured that "teams were rotated in to rest and have something to eat after each "sortie". In the evening a MSO went to the forward base to ensure safety was a priority. There is no task in GTM SQTR to demonstrate how to fill a sandbag or to perform damage assessment. Our cadets and seniors who responded were more prepared and safer than members of the general public who also responded. As SAR missions are few and far between we need a DR team training module to prepare our members when their local communities request CAP's assistance. I have to agree with lordmonar's statement " Too often I see CAP too locked into "It's not in the regs". Our mission is to support our community state and nation. It's in our cadet oath and should be in our Senior Member Oath. Get the mission done. " I will add "SAFELY" which this mission was. As with all missions the risks were assessed, controls were put in place, and the need outweighed the minimal risk involved.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2013, 09:45:19 PM
Running out the door and hoping you figure out your duties when you get there is not "getting the mission done".
Not at least for structured organizations.
Except that is exactly what is going on during DR. You never know what you're going to see, so you can't train for it. Everyone else is doing the same thing and making the best of a dynamic situation.
Should CAP's response be "Sand bagging crews? Oh gosh, sorry, our people haven't been trained and qualified to make sandbags, we can't help." Sometimes you get your training and qualification by doing. Sometimes you're doing it in a dangerous situation because you have to and yes, sometimes people get hurt or killed. That doesn't mean the organization is at fault.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 18, 2013, 09:33:06 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 18, 2013, 09:23:22 PMFair enough. Having control over the training and qualification process makes sense too. But I've never understood the purpose of the CERT qualification within CAP; that's why I asked the question.
There isn't one. CERT was added a few years ago to OPS Quals in anticipation of CAP extending their ES scope into this area. To date it hasn't done that.
Entering a CERT cert (see what I did there?) into OPS Quals serves very little purpose.
I heard that CERT is being done away with, at least as a CAP thing.
Quote from: bflynn on April 24, 2013, 11:39:27 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2013, 09:45:19 PM
Running out the door and hoping you figure out your duties when you get there is not "getting the mission done".
Not at least for structured organizations.
Except that is exactly what is going on during DR. You never know what you're going to see, so you can't train for it. Everyone else is doing the same thing and making the best of a dynamic situation.
Should CAP's response be "Sand bagging crews? Oh gosh, sorry, our people haven't been trained and qualified to make sandbags, we can't help." Sometimes you get your training and qualification by doing. Sometimes you're doing it in a dangerous situation because you have to and yes, sometimes people get hurt or killed. That doesn't mean the organization is at fault.
I think the one skill that you can really bring to DR situations is command-and-control and organization. Those are skills that CAP has, and trains with. Beyond that,
semper gumby.
Part of the problem (in my opinion) is that other than some geographical/cimate issues SAR is SAR. (at least in regards to missing persons/missing aircraft) so you can create a pretty much unified traning curriculum that is applicable in most any area (at least as a baseline). When it comes to DR, yes there are some constants (sort of fam and prep concepts) but the number of potential types of "disasters" is pretty wide ranging and in some cases very geogrpahically exclusive (at least as far as likely to occur) to the point that it makes creating a "universal" skill set difficult. That being said, I still think CAP needs a qualification beyond GES that applies to field operations other than SAR; similar to GTM3. I feel that in the absence of anyother training CERT met that need. I still feel that it didnt qualify you for any other "real" DR capability, but at least put you in an "awareness" mode.
Here is what I posted in another thread regarding what one of my former squadrons used as a training quideline; some is geographic specific:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1963.msg32790#msg32790 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1963.msg32790#msg32790)
mk
A DR3 Qual sounds like a good idea, it could cover the specific dangers of things like flooding, and how to safely preform basic tasks associated with DR. We could even have DR teams, seprate or connected to GTs as I think Disaster Relief will become a much more important mission in the coming years.
(typed right as AG was typing his)Quote from: bflynn on April 24, 2013, 11:39:27 AM
Should CAP's response be "Sand bagging crews? Oh gosh, sorry, our people haven't been trained and qualified to make sandbags, we can't help."
I don't think anyone's advocating something so specific as having multiple DR SQTRs like that.
One idea to mitigate Eclipse's concerns on safety is to have a specific training session based on common duties and hazards encountered on DR mission. You could do this in one session after GES.
- "These are common safety hazards during a flood/earthquake/fire/etc you need to watch for..." In GTM3 training people are out in the woods in the elements, so we cover hot/cold injuries, bugs & snakes to avoid, etc. This isn't much different
- "Here are some common tasks we may be asked to do: door checks/sandbags/PoD/etc" Give everyone a 5 minute or less of what is expected with each task.
There are enough commonalities across the variety of disasters that we might be able to help with to develop decent overview.
The process could be: do GES, then Gen DR. Instead of the call going out to "all GES members" it could be "all Gen DR members". I would think that anyone interested in ground ops would feel inclined to take one additional class to be able to do DR missions. I specified ground ops as our aircrews have some very specific roles in DR missions that they are already trained for and active in.
Quote from: bflynn on April 24, 2013, 11:39:27 AMShould CAP's response be "Sand bagging crews? Oh gosh, sorry, our people haven't been trained and qualified to make sandbags, we can't help." Sometimes you get your training and qualification by doing. Sometimes you're doing it in a dangerous situation because you have to and yes, sometimes people get hurt or killed. That doesn't mean the organization is at fault.
Maybe. CAP is not "all things to all people", yet there are people who try to morph it that way.
The point here is that CAP shouldn't has a mission which is so squishy that questions like this, which keep coming up, are never answered, because
people know that to answer them succinctly might limit our ability to "get in the game".
Knowing when to say "we can't help" is just as important as saying "we're on the way", but "no" seems to be a word CAP does not
seem comfortable with, both internally or externally.
Structured organizations, at least the successful ones, do not send their members out in the field and "hope they figure it out". In fact
our structure is a cornerstone of the entire program and mission, and is one of the key delimiters that separates us from other organizations
that look similar from the outside.
Without over-thinking this too much, we could easily train those members who have no experience in working in a DR area. Common sense topics that those of us who work in the field just do without thinking about, but the average person has never heard of.
Being aware of downed power lines, which can energize fences or highway guard rails; don't walk through running water; stay clear of trees during high winds. The list goes on and on.
You can't possibly train for every type of incident, but you can introduce concepts that will help members think on their feet.
They way to mitigate Eclipes' safety concerns is to just ignore Eclipse.
The Corps of Engineers has trained sand bag dyke engineers, the ARC has trained shelter mangers.......what they need from CAP is warm bodies, with stong backs, attention to detail, and enough common sense to stay on the dry side of the dyke.
This can also be extened to a lot of other CAP operations.
We had this go around about CAP drivers.......i.e. assigning a non GTM qualified CAP member as the driver for a Ground team.
We get too hung up about having a piece of paper that says "my boss says I'm qualified"......while yes.....there is a safety concern....there are always safety concern....but even if you are a full GTM1 with years of experince there is a safety concern....and it is the members on the spot and his leadership back at mission base that makes those decisions.
Now....I agree with the concept of expanding our ES qualificaitons that include DR operations......CERT is already there, we need to look at shelter managment, Flood Response, Fire Response, Earthquake Reponse...what ever.
Missions for America........I don't know why we did not stick with that by line......is what we need to be focusing on.
I think some common-sense training, more then the ticket-punch of GES, on operating in a dangerous environment, coupled
with some strict supervisory standards is the reasonable place this should fall.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 03:20:51 PMthe ARC has trained shelter mangers.......what they need from CAP is warm bodies, with stong backs, attention to detail, and enough common sense to stay on the dry side of the dyke.
Since when is common sense "common", especially among 12 year olds?
This can also be extened to a lot of other CAP operations.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 03:20:51 PM
We had this go around about CAP drivers.......i.e. assigning a non GTM qualified CAP member as the driver for a Ground team.
Which is WHOLLY INAPPROPRIATE and a serious mission liability, as was pointed out clearly in THAT discussion.
There's also the valid option of leaving CAP out of it from a mission perspective and responding to these needs as a private citizen
on your own recon, and then submitting the hours spent for a CSR.
Most wings don't even get called upon to do ANYTHING (such as mine) because it takes us three days to call them back about the problem (which has by then already been solved by someone else). We need to have some basic quals done, but until that happens we also need to recognize the fact that every time we refuse a call for service, we place ourselves in a box of obsolete tools.
Instead of whining about the problem here, we ALL need to submit some plans and ideas to our wings. I think I'll do mine this week and see what I can get from them. ::)
Quote from: Eclipse on April 24, 2013, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 03:20:51 PMthe ARC has trained shelter mangers.......what they need from CAP is warm bodies, with stong backs, attention to detail, and enough common sense to stay on the dry side of the dyke.
Since when is common sense "common", especially among 12 year olds?
Since we have adults leading those cadets......I don't understand your point.
Is the discussion about CAP sorteing teams to assist.......or is it about what age should cadets be before they participate in ES activites?
QuoteThis can also be extened to a lot of other CAP operations.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 03:20:51 PM
We had this go around about CAP drivers.......i.e. assigning a non GTM qualified CAP member as the driver for a Ground team.
Which is WHOLLY INAPPROPRIATE and a serious mission liability, as was pointed out clearly in THAT discussion.
And we would have to agree to disagree on that assessment.
Quote from: The Infamous Meerkat on April 24, 2013, 03:28:06 PMInstead of whining about the problem here, we ALL need to submit some plans and ideas to our wings. I think I'll do mine this week and see what I can get from them.
Yes, we do. My wing currently has had 4 active DR missions in the last week, with more expected as the water flows South.
Those Groups and units that have established relationships, trained people, and an expectation of response are getting the call and answering it.
Those who have not prepared, don't have trained people, or who haven't set the relationships, are not.
Interestingly, on Sunday alone, we had 2 open and active DR missions, and were spinning up for a missing child - you know all those missions "CAP doesn't do".
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 03:28:45 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 24, 2013, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 03:20:51 PMthe ARC has trained shelter mangers.......what they need from CAP is warm bodies, with stong backs, attention to detail, and enough common sense to stay on the dry side of the dyke.
Since when is common sense "common", especially among 12 year olds?
Since we have adults leading those cadets......I don't understand your point.
Is the discussion about CAP sorteing teams to assist.......or is it about what age should cadets be before they participate in ES activites?
Untrained adults leading untrained members, cadets and seniors, is a recipe for disaster.
It's >not< specifically about response age, however knowing that when you call out people and the minimum is "GES and a F60", you are going to
get a lot of new members and young cadets, you can't expect a lot of "common sense" to play into your plans and contingencies.
CAPT 116 (GES) is such an easy test, that most can pass it by just reading the PowerPoint training. That just gives you an overview of CAP Emergency Services mission and program. I believe that a qualification geared to DR would not only be appropriate, but beneficial. It could focus on common disasters, hazards and responses. It would not necessarily provide a detailed training on every possible scenario or type of mission, but could provide a general understanding commensurable with the type of work expected from CAP members. GES is just not enough.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 24, 2013, 03:37:28 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 03:28:45 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 24, 2013, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 03:20:51 PMthe ARC has trained shelter mangers.......what they need from CAP is warm bodies, with stong backs, attention to detail, and enough common sense to stay on the dry side of the dyke.
Since when is common sense "common", especially among 12 year olds?
Since we have adults leading those cadets......I don't understand your point.
Is the discussion about CAP sorteing teams to assist.......or is it about what age should cadets be before they participate in ES activites?
Untrained adults leading untrained members, cadets and seniors, is a recipe for disaster.
It's >not< specifically about response age, however knowing that when you call out people and the minimum is "GES and a F60", you are going to
get a lot of new members and young cadets, you can't expect a lot of "common sense" to play into your plans and contingencies.
I still wonder how we have a recipe for disaster in a call out for shelter managment and sandbag operations.
It is not rocket science. Shelter management.....sign into mission base, go to the the school....follow the directions of the ARC/FEMA/Military shelter manager. Sandbag operations......sign into mission base.....get into the van and go the build site....follow the directions fo the ARC/FEMA/Military leader there.
Like I said.....we get too tied up with the idea that we have to be "trained and certified" to do anything....we forget that the important thing is to do Missions for America.
If you think "untrained" 12 year olds are too much of liability.......okay I'll buy that......you slap an age restriction on it.....which brings us back to the whole concept of Cadets in ES.
I have had cadets playing with handcuffs after a regular meeting, in a city that prohibits non-LE personnel from having handcuffs, and these cadets were 17 and 18 year olds! They are supposed to know. They ae supposed to have common sense. Take those to a mission, the embarrassment and the potential problem you as a GTL have to suddenly deal with a cadet being taken in handcuffs by LE because of having contraband like that, your resources will not be called again.
I have had cadets playing with knives.
Flyer
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 04:07:39 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 24, 2013, 03:37:28 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 03:28:45 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 24, 2013, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 03:20:51 PMthe ARC has trained shelter mangers.......what they need from CAP is warm bodies, with stong backs, attention to detail, and enough common sense to stay on the dry side of the dyke.
Since when is common sense "common", especially among 12 year olds?
Since we have adults leading those cadets......I don't understand your point.
Is the discussion about CAP sorteing teams to assist.......or is it about what age should cadets be before they participate in ES activites?
Untrained adults leading untrained members, cadets and seniors, is a recipe for disaster.
It's >not< specifically about response age, however knowing that when you call out people and the minimum is "GES and a F60", you are going to
get a lot of new members and young cadets, you can't expect a lot of "common sense" to play into your plans and contingencies.
I still wonder how we have a recipe for disaster in a call out for shelter managment and sandbag operations.
It is not rocket science. Shelter management.....sign into mission base, go to the the school....follow the directions of the ARC/FEMA/Military shelter manager. Sandbag operations......sign into mission base.....get into the van and go the build site....follow the directions fo the ARC/FEMA/Military leader there.
Like I said.....we get too tied up with the idea that we have to be "trained and certified" to do anything....we forget that the important thing is to do Missions for America.
If you think "untrained" 12 year olds are too much of liability.......okay I'll buy that......you slap an age restriction on it.....which brings us back to the whole concept of Cadets in ES.
The issue is that these untrained / tested individuals carry the reputation and liability coverage of the organization as a whole.
If the ARC is comfortable bringing in untrained Vigilanteers, fine, that's on them. But when we show up with a mission #, in uniform,
there's an expectation that our people have been vetted and have some preparation for the duty. They are supposed to be "better"
then the Vigilanteers, otherwise there's really no point in the background noise of membership, right?
The ARC is perfectly capable of providing insurance and other protections to people that help them. If we're bring zero to the table
beyond "warm bodies", then we also don't need to have those "warm bodies" wearing a CAP uniform.
And as I have said a couple times already, there's also the issue that the average slick-sleeve will have no idea when to say "no", senior or cadet,
which leads to escalation of activities and support fair beyond out authorization.
Sadly, in just the time it has taken to build this thread, the doctrine could be written an posted, but instead we see fit to "look the other way"
and function in a loophole of 60-3 which was clearly not intended for that purpose.
Eclipse......your argument sounds reasonable........except that you missed the part where the requesting agency does not expect us to be vetted and prepared for duty.
If they need pilots to do SAR....they call us.
If they need fire fighters......they call a fire department.
If they need medics......they call an EMT service.
Sometimes they need warm bodies......so they call everyone.
Again.......you assume that everyone is just going to be out on their own. The average slick sleeve will not have to worry about when they have to say "no" becasuse he should have an experinced CAP officer there to make that decision.
Your problem is that you expect leaders to be someone who can read a reg and just make sure everyone else is doing what is written down.
Leaders are people who get the mission done.
Yes...I agree that NHQ needs to address DR operations more...develope SQTRs, sources of training, and provide 60-1 guidance.
In the mean time we need to adapt, overcome and complete the mission.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 04:46:07 PMYour problem is that you expect leaders to be someone who can read a reg and just make sure everyone else is doing what is written down.
Leaders are people who get the mission done.
OK - that's a complete pile, and sounds like serious GOBN nonsense.
I heard something similar once "I don't read regs, I read FARs".
Why do we need to establish standards for reasonably forseeable missions? We need to do it because we've already done so for other tasks that ought to be common sense. As was pointed out in an earlier post, MSA is drop dead simple yet we have a SQTR for it. In light of that fact, failure to do the same for generic DR tasks looks like a glaring omission.
I'm no lawyer, but I wonder if that could be the crack into which a reasonable lawsuit can be wedged. "My kid got hurt. CAP made my son/daughter train to run a sign in log, but they had no training about risks associated with hazard XXX."
A general disaster relief SQTR could be created easily. Fill it with typical DR tasks, even if many of them are only discussion items. At least then you can say we talked about risks to avoid and opportunities to excel. Do that and CAP disaster relief no longer looks like a fly by night exercise.
Eclipse, your response sounds more like GOBN bull**** than his does, as that's usually the response one can expect from them.
"Well, I don't agree with that, so it's crap." I've heard many a field grade officer and twice as many Staff NCO's say the same. There is some sense to what he says, as we cannot foresee everything that will happen.
If you don't have a reg, what are you going to do? Stand there until someone thinks for you? Or maybe go work the problem and accomplish the mission? I know which one is praised and which one is frowned upon, so I'll take the latter. You can... do whatever you want brah, enjoy your reg quibbling. As for the regs, the change starts with us, so your arguement is nothing but hot air if you don't do something about it.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 04:46:07 PM
Sometimes they need warm bodies......so they call everyone.
That is not a good argument. Private Citizens can provide "warm bodies". Other entities can provide "warm bodies". CAP should provide trained and capable volunteers, who can display some level of proficiency and professionalism while working on a DR response.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 04:46:07 PM
Again.......you assume that everyone is just going to be out on their own. The average slick sleeve will not have to worry about when they have to say "no" becasuse he should have an experinced CAP officer there to make that decision.
You're now making assumptions. If the requirement for DR is 'GES' and a 'CAPF 60' then, how do you know you'll have an experienced officer leading this operation? And, what constitute "experienced"? Without a standard, you can only speculate on what units can or will provide.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 04:46:07 PM
Your problem is that you expect leaders to be someone who can read a reg and just make sure everyone else is doing what is written down.
Leaders are people who get the mission done.
Leaders lead. In order to be an effective leader in a given operation, you need to be knowledgeable and experienced enough in order to lead others in accomplishing that mission. How can you lead others, yet alone "get the mission done", if you don't know what you're doing or how to do it? Some level of training is required.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 04:46:07 PM
Yes...I agree that NHQ needs to address DR operations more...develope SQTRs, sources of training, and provide 60-1 guidance.
In the mean time we need to adapt, overcome and complete the mission.
This is the only sensible thing you've said on this post. However, we need to be 'smart' about
how we "complete the mission." Not just show up and hope for the best.
Quote from: The Infamous Meerkat on April 24, 2013, 06:15:00 PM"Well, I don't agree with that, so it's crap." I've heard many a field grade officer and twice as many Staff NCO's say the same. There is some sense to what he says, as we cannot foresee everything that will happen.
Saying "we can't forsee everything" is not an excuse to ignore things that are staring at us and require planning and decisions.
The first time a request for support outside the norm comes in, you make on-the-spot decisions and hope for the best, then
as.
a.
leader...
You go back to the organization and establish policy and doctrine to insure that the next time this "thing" is asked for or about,
you have a ready answer, procedure, and can accomplish the mission with the minimum amount of effort and "getting started" thinking.
You don't simply throw up your hands because "you can't have a plan for everything".
LEO's and FDs have very detailed plans and training for everything which falls into the normal mandate of their duties, and
when something different comes up, the improvise on the spot, and then re-write the training and plans to accommodate it.
Is there ever a chance that during a DR situation a member, even while filling bags with sand along an overflowing river, may be faced with even a single casualty?
Is there at least the same chance that they may be faced with a frantic local citizen who is looking for aid for a loved one who is hurt badly, dying or dead?
Now how greatly do those chances increase when that same member switches from street clothes (local volunteer) into his/her CAP uniform (volunteer from a local/state/federal government agency)? "Dont ask the guy in the who farted T-Shirt, ask the Army Guy for help!"
In my opinion we are setting people up for some serious CISM related issues if we don't at least prepare them for that.
I know I wouldn't want any cadets running out into the field without knowing they've all had that talk at a squadron meeting or specific training AND being briefed on it again on scene... and then given the option. It'd be easier to know that this training/talk had occurred if it was on their 101 card.
Just two tenths of my two cents.
EDIT: I picked on cadets in that last pseudo-paragraph because as a crusty old adult I'm pretty sure MOST of us seniors have had some experience with death in our lives.
I can't be sure any of our cadets have until I KNOW they have. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of them have not only because it is a safer bet.
^ Excellently put.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 24, 2013, 06:16:43 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 04:46:07 PM
Sometimes they need warm bodies......so they call everyone.
That is not a good argument. Private Citizens can provide "warm bodies". Other entities can provide "warm bodies". CAP should provide trained and capable volunteers, who can display some level of proficiency and professionalism while working on a DR response.
I agree....CAP
SHOULD provide trained and professionals........but the alternitive in the case we are talking about is not to repond at all.
When they call for warm bodies......we should respond (if our bodies are not already tasked).
QuoteQuote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 04:46:07 PM
Again.......you assume that everyone is just going to be out on their own. The average slick sleeve will not have to worry about when they have to say "no" becasuse he should have an experinced CAP officer there to make that decision.
You're now making assumptions. If the requirement for DR is 'GES' and a 'CAPF 60' then, how do you know you'll have an experienced officer leading this operation? And, what constitute "experienced"? Without a standard, you can only speculate on what units can or will provide.
So you are telling me you as and IC would let a bunch of cadets with out proper supervision out the door to go the sand bag site? Yes it is an assumption.....it is a reasonable assumption because it is the way we normally do buisness. By "experinced" I mean somone I know who can handle the situation and the personnel as a leader.
QuoteQuote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 04:46:07 PM
Your problem is that you expect leaders to be someone who can read a reg and just make sure everyone else is doing what is written down.
Leaders are people who get the mission done.
Leaders lead. In order to be an effective leader in a given operation, you need to be knowledgeable and experienced enough in order to lead others in accomplishing that mission. How can you lead others, yet alone "get the mission done", if you don't know what you're doing or how to do it? Some level of training is required.
Sorry that's simply not true. Lots of IC's don't know how to fly airplanes.....but they can lead that mission and get it done.
Leaders lead.........and leadership is the art and science of motivating and guiding a group of people to accomplish a task or mission.
QuoteQuote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 04:46:07 PM
Yes...I agree that NHQ needs to address DR operations more...develope SQTRs, sources of training, and provide 60-1 guidance.
In the mean time we need to adapt, overcome and complete the mission.
This is the only sensible thing you've said on this post. However, we need to be 'smart' about how we "complete the mission." Not just show up and hope for the best.
Never have I said that we "just show up and hope for the best". Never, Never, Never.......I have and contiune to say......We don't say "sorry, but we don't have a "sandbag filler" SQTR so we can't help you".
I say that we use our judgement at leaders, our understanding of the regulations and policies of our organisation and put forth our best effort and get our people into the field to get the job done.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 24, 2013, 06:34:34 PM
Quote from: The Infamous Meerkat on April 24, 2013, 06:15:00 PM"Well, I don't agree with that, so it's crap." I've heard many a field grade officer and twice as many Staff NCO's say the same. There is some sense to what he says, as we cannot foresee everything that will happen.
Saying "we can't forsee everything" is not an excuse to ignore things that are staring at us and require planning and decisions.
The first time a request for support outside the norm comes in, you make on-the-spot decisions and hope for the best, then
as.
a.
leader...
You go back to the organization and establish policy and doctrine to insure that the next time this "thing" is asked for or about,
you have a ready answer, procedure, and can accomplish the mission with the minimum amount of effort and "getting started" thinking.
You don't simply throw up your hands because "you can't have a plan for everything".
LEO's and FDs have very detailed plans and training for everything which falls into the normal mandate of their duties, and
when something different comes up, the improvise on the spot, and then re-write the training and plans to accommodate it.
Okay.....so as a leader who have you contacted about this lack of doctrine?
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 08:59:09 PM
Okay.....so as a leader who have you contacted about this lack of doctrine?
NHQ, who responded with the loophole in 60-3 that allows for GES to pretty much do anything.
Therefore, my wing will fix this and upchannel the fix as a suggestion for program as a whole.
Quote from: johnnyb47 on April 24, 2013, 06:50:24 PM
Is there ever a chance that during a DR situation a member, even while filling bags with sand along an overflowing river, may be faced with even a single casualty?
Is there at least the same chance that they may be faced with a frantic local citizen who is looking for aid for a loved one who is hurt badly, dying or dead?
Now how greatly do those chances increase when that same member switches from street clothes (local volunteer) into his/her CAP uniform (volunteer from a local/state/federal government agency)? "Dont ask the guy in the who farted T-Shirt, ask the Army Guy for help!"
In my opinion we are setting people up for some serious CISM related issues if we don't at least prepare them for that.
I know I wouldn't want any cadets running out into the field without knowing they've all had that talk at a squadron meeting or specific training AND being briefed on it again on scene... and then given the option. It'd be easier to know that this training/talk had occurred if it was on their 101 card.
Just two tenths of my two cents.
EDIT: I picked on cadets in that last pseudo-paragraph because as a crusty old adult I'm pretty sure MOST of us seniors have had some experience with death in our lives.
I can't be sure any of our cadets have until I KNOW they have. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of them have not only because it is a safer bet.
Interesting point.....and I understand what you are getting at.......but in what way is that different then any other mission we go on?
We make those decisions every day.....be it a Cadet Meeting to real world SAR. As they used to say in the first slide of the GES training.....SAR is an emergency. We are exposed to all sorts of hazards just showing up to the mission base.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 08:57:55 PM
I agree....CAP SHOULD provide trained and professionals........but the alternitive in the case we are talking about is not to repond at all.
When they call for warm bodies......we should respond (if our bodies are not already tasked).
Sometimes not responding is the best response. If my unit is tasked with a GSAR mission and I don't have a qualified GTL, I don't send a ground team. If they request air support for SAR and my only available pilot is not a qualified MP, I don't send an aircrew. It's that simple.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 08:57:55 PM
So you are telling me you as and IC would let a bunch of cadets with out proper supervision out the door to go the sand bag site? Yes it is an assumption.....it is a reasonable assumption because it is the way we normally do buisness. By "experinced" I mean somone I know who can handle the situation and the personnel as a leader.
I would not. I also wouldn't send personnel, even if they had GES, unless I thought they were capable of accomplishing the mission safely and successfully. Training facilitates that.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 08:57:55 PM
Sorry that's simply not true. Lots of IC's don't know how to fly airplanes.....but they can lead that mission and get it done.
Leaders lead.........and leadership is the art and science of motivating and guiding a group of people to accomplish a task or mission.
That is not a good example. If an IC has no experience in air operations required for a mission, he/she will appoint an OSC or AOBD that is. Again, trained individuals.
Besides you said on your previous post that leaders "get the mission done." I'm glad you're expanding on your previous limited definition of leadership.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 08:57:55 PM
Never have I said that we "just show up and hope for the best". Never, Never, Never.......I have and contiune to say......We don't say "sorry, but we don't have a "sandbag filler" SQTR so we can't help you".
Nobody suggested that sandbagging should require an SQTR. What we've suggested is that DR personnel should have training beyond GES.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 08:57:55 PM
I say that we use our judgement at leaders, our understanding of the regulations and policies of our organisation and put forth our best effort and get our people into the field to get the job done.
And because we ARE using our judgment and experience, we are making the recommendation that CAP should have dedicated DR training and a corresponding qualification. Furthermore, we are pointing out the GES in and of itself is not enough training to respond to certain disasters or perform certain tasks.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 09:20:48 PM
Interesting point.....and I understand what you are getting at.......but in what way is that different then any other mission we go on?
The difference is training. I know the level of training that my cadets with GTM3/2/1 have. In many cases, a cadet with GES and no other ES training has only a vague idea of the ES mission within CAP.
I'm going to go direct to page 5 one this one because I suspect pages 2-4 are just repeats of page 1.
Around here, sandbagging operations are cattle-call affairs where members of the community come together to help each other save property and lives. These individuals are untrained and inexperienced. Why? Because sandbagging, handing out water, and making sandwiches are things which are dead-simple and require no prior experience. Because they're SIMPLE.
So, if a member of the public can knock off work an hour early and go help sandbag an old lady's house, why should we require our members to jump through 15 hoops just for the sake of being "highly qualified", a phrase which has no meaning when it comes to (and I repeat myself here), sandbagging, making sandwiches, and passing out water.
Now, if we're talking about going door-to-door in a relatively dangerous disaster area, doing disaster assessment, or things that require extended durations from base or are otherwise in highly austere conditions, that's a different conversation.
Then CAP need not be involved beyond beyond providing contact information, which is a reasonable response.
Warm body work doesn't require a structured entity to execute, so encourage members to help on their own recon, give them a CSR, and move on.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2013, 09:20:48 PM
Quote from: johnnyb47 on April 24, 2013, 06:50:24 PM
Is there ever a chance that during a DR situation a member, even while filling bags with sand along an overflowing river, may be faced with even a single casualty?
Is there at least the same chance that they may be faced with a frantic local citizen who is looking for aid for a loved one who is hurt badly, dying or dead?
Now how greatly do those chances increase when that same member switches from street clothes (local volunteer) into his/her CAP uniform (volunteer from a local/state/federal government agency)? "Dont ask the guy in the who farted T-Shirt, ask the Army Guy for help!"
In my opinion we are setting people up for some serious CISM related issues if we don't at least prepare them for that.
I know I wouldn't want any cadets running out into the field without knowing they've all had that talk at a squadron meeting or specific training AND being briefed on it again on scene... and then given the option. It'd be easier to know that this training/talk had occurred if it was on their 101 card.
Just two tenths of my two cents.
EDIT: I picked on cadets in that last pseudo-paragraph because as a crusty old adult I'm pretty sure MOST of us seniors have had some experience with death in our lives.
I can't be sure any of our cadets have until I KNOW they have. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of them have not only because it is a safer bet.
Interesting point.....and I understand what you are getting at.......but in what way is that different then any other mission we go on?
We make those decisions every day.....be it a Cadet Meeting to real world SAR. As they used to say in the first slide of the GES training.....SAR is an emergency. We are exposed to all sorts of hazards just showing up to the mission base.
A GTM3 should know to never put his fingers into the mouth of someone having a seizure because they have had first aid training. A GTM3 know which natural hazards to avoid. A GTM3 knows what to expect to some degree when walking up to a crash site and has training about what should be done in the event of a find, etc. While I don't think it fully prepares them for the worst case scenario it is something.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 25, 2013, 12:33:56 AM
I'm going to go direct to page 5 one this one because I suspect pages 2-4 are just repeats of page 1.
Around here, sandbagging operations are cattle-call affairs where members of the community come together to help each other save property and lives. These individuals are untrained and inexperienced. Why? Because sandbagging, handing out water, and making sandwiches are things which are dead-simple and require no prior experience. Because they're SIMPLE.
So, if a member of the public can knock off work an hour early and go help sandbag an old lady's house, why should we require our members to jump through 15 hoops just for the sake of being "highly qualified", a phrase which has no meaning when it comes to (and I repeat myself here), sandbagging, making sandwiches, and passing out water.
Now, if we're talking about going door-to-door in a relatively dangerous disaster area, doing disaster assessment, or things that require extended durations from base or are otherwise in highly austere conditions, that's a different conversation.
should landscape in one area dictate the training requirements of a national organization? Shouldn't a DR trained CAP member be able to be dropped anywhere in the country and expected to function nearly as well in any environment?
Shouldn't someone spend some properly training our members what to say if approached by the media while sandbagging in a CAP uniform?
I don't think it has to be 15 hoops but a small amount of nationally standardized DR training that takes a few check offs to complete shouldn't be too much to ask.
Quote from: johnnyb47 on April 25, 2013, 01:51:28 AM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 25, 2013, 12:33:56 AM
I'm going to go direct to page 5 one this one because I suspect pages 2-4 are just repeats of page 1.
Around here, sandbagging operations are cattle-call affairs where members of the community come together to help each other save property and lives. These individuals are untrained and inexperienced. Why? Because sandbagging, handing out water, and making sandwiches are things which are dead-simple and require no prior experience. Because they're SIMPLE.
So, if a member of the public can knock off work an hour early and go help sandbag an old lady's house, why should we require our members to jump through 15 hoops just for the sake of being "highly qualified", a phrase which has no meaning when it comes to (and I repeat myself here), sandbagging, making sandwiches, and passing out water.
Now, if we're talking about going door-to-door in a relatively dangerous disaster area, doing disaster assessment, or things that require extended durations from base or are otherwise in highly austere conditions, that's a different conversation.
should landscape in one area dictate the training requirements of a national organization? Shouldn't a DR trained CAP member be able to be dropped anywhere in the country and expected to function nearly as well in any environment?
Shouldn't someone spend some properly training our members what to say if approached by the media while sandbagging in a CAP uniform?
I don't think it has to be 15 hoops but a small amount of nationally standardized DR training that takes a few check offs to complete shouldn't be too much to ask.
Sandbagging, making sandwiches, and handing out water doesn't change because you're in Louisiana vs. Illinois. See my final point, which stated that advanced tasking in austere/remote environments should be conducted by trained personnel (GTM most likely). That seems to be the type of tasking you're getting at here, since I'm not going halfway across the country to sandbag.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 25, 2013, 01:09:40 AM
Then CAP need not be involved beyond beyond providing contact information, which is a reasonable response.
Warm body work doesn't require a structured entity to execute, so encourage members to help on their own recon, give them a CSR, and move on.
That's the answer to "should we even be doing this?", which is definitely a conversation worth having. "Should we require GT3 to put sand into burlap sacks?" isn't a conversation worth having, since it's so simple a middle school student can do it.
Quote from: johnnyb47 on April 25, 2013, 01:44:43 AMA GTM3 should know to never put his fingers into the mouth of someone having a seizure because they have had first aid training. A GTM3 know which natural hazards to avoid. A GTM3 knows what to expect to some degree when walking up to a crash site and has training about what should be done in the event of a find, etc. While I don't think it fully prepares them for the worst case scenario it is something.
And these are the hazards that he is likely to encounter while sandbagging?
Quote from: lordmonar on April 25, 2013, 04:10:56 AM
And these are the hazards that he is likely to encounter while sandbagging?
You keep bringing up the sandbagging example, but that's not the problem. The fact remains that our current National CAP policy does not address DR responses or training adequately.
Let's use your example in a different setting. Sandbagging is needed in a flooded area. There are power lines down. There is damaged property and injured people all around... You get the picture. Since there's no requirement from National to use GTM personnel, anyone with a GES should be able to respond adequately in this hazardous environment, right? I think we can see that in this particular scenario (which goes beyond just sandbagging and handing out sandwiches and water), GES may not be enough training.
Now let's say the IC uses his/her judgment and decides to use personnel with GTM3 instead, which is technically not required. GTM3 personnel, while most likely better prepared than those with just GES, will not necessarily have all the skills or knowledge related to DR responses, since DR is not part of their training curriculum. Specialized DR training and a corresponding qualification could prove quite useful for those responses that go beyond just putting sand in a bag or handing out water.
We may not see eye to eye on how to approach this, but at least we can agree that we want to have personnel able to respond to a disaster, provide a valuable service and do it safely. At the end, our membership is our most valuable asset and we want to make sure we provide them with the tools they need to accomplish the mission successfully, without becoming themselves victims or liabilities. Cheers!
Um... Sandbagging means the river is coming up, not normally that power lines are down and injured people are everywhere. Throwing in unrealistic conditions doesn't make your point more valid.
Why would the river be coming up? Does it come up on its own?
No, it usually comes up because there was some rain caused by a storm!
I do not know about your region, but I always see high winds with storms.
With high winds, you almost always have downed power lines...
If you say that flooding is not associated with downed power lines, I do not want you as a Ground Team Leader...
Flyer
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 25, 2013, 03:30:59 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 25, 2013, 04:10:56 AM
And these are the hazards that he is likely to encounter while sandbagging?
You keep bringing up the sandbagging example, but that's not the problem. The fact remains that our current National CAP policy does not address DR responses or training adequately.
Let's use your example in a different setting. Sandbagging is needed in a flooded area. There are power lines down. There is damaged property and injured people all around...
...
Specialized DR training and a corresponding qualification could prove quite useful for those responses that go beyond just putting sand in a bag or handing out water.
Actually, what would be most useful is a Safety Officer, because that's where the go/no go decision is going to come from if we have power lines on the ground. The best thing is, we already have that.
Now here's my response, have you ever been on an actual ground DR mission? I've been on several, ranging from flooding to tornadoes (meaning downed power lines and injured people). Do you want to know what the GTM trained CAP personnel like myself were doing when the call for warm bodies went out during the initial phase, directing ARC volunteers in making sandwiches, directing people to the shelter, and similar non-hazardous items. And what were we doing during the aftermath might you ask, damage assessment for Red Cross assistance, managing a shelter, driving around passing out water, and recruiting. None of that was covered by GTM training, and none of it was hazardous. We didn't do the hazardous stuff because there was a CAP IC who used his head and said we don't need to be plucking people out of a fast moving river, but we can still assist even if we don't have a DR qual.
Quote from: flyer333555 on April 25, 2013, 04:59:44 PM
Why would the river be coming up? Does it come up on its own?
No, it usually comes up because there was some rain caused by a storm!
I do not know about your region, but I always see high winds with storms.
With high winds, you almost always have downed power lines...
If you say that flooding is not associated with downed power lines, I do not want you as a Ground Team Leader...
Flyer
I don't know about your area, but around here rivers flow (when they have water in them). So a storm 50 miles away can cause flooding locally, regardless of whether or not the storm reached our area.
Quote from: flyer333555 on April 25, 2013, 04:59:44 PM
Why would the river be coming up? Does it come up on its own?
No, it usually comes up because there was some rain caused by a storm!
I do not know about your region, but I always see high winds with storms.
With high winds, you almost always have downed power lines...
If you say that flooding is not associated with downed power lines, I do not want you as a Ground Team Leader...
Flyer
Around here, the river comes up because snow up north (Minnesota, Dakotas, Wisconsin, Canada) tends to melt in the spring and dump into the rivers, which eventually feeds into large rivers such as the Mississippi. We have a lot of flooding right now from the Illinois River (I just took pics over lunch, want to see?), and I can tell you that there are no downed power lines and injured people lying around.
When flooding happens because of a storm that knocks down power lines, it is because of low-lying and uneven ground which there is no point in sandbagging because the water is coming from the sky...
Then again, maybe I'm just a moron. I've only seen this story repeated every spring for the last couple of decades I've been alive.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 25, 2013, 04:10:56 AM
Quote from: johnnyb47 on April 25, 2013, 01:44:43 AMA GTM3 should know to never put his fingers into the mouth of someone having a seizure because they have had first aid training. A GTM3 know which natural hazards to avoid. A GTM3 knows what to expect to some degree when walking up to a crash site and has training about what should be done in the event of a find, etc. While I don't think it fully prepares them for the worst case scenario it is something.
And these are the hazards that he is likely to encounter while sandbagging?
Basic first aid due to overexertion/pre-existing conditions, knowing which snakes, stinging insects and other wildlife live in your area and how to avoid them and knowing what to do in the event that someone who drowned up-stream is floating past in the body of water along which you are sandbagging? Yeah I would say those are some of the things we should be prepping for in sandbagging operations.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 25, 2013, 03:30:59 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 25, 2013, 04:10:56 AM
And these are the hazards that he is likely to encounter while sandbagging?
You keep bringing up the sandbagging example, but that's not the problem. The fact remains that our current National CAP policy does not address DR responses or training adequately.
Let's use your example in a different setting. Sandbagging is needed in a flooded area. There are power lines down. There is damaged property and injured people all around... You get the picture. Since there's no requirement from National to use GTM personnel, anyone with a GES should be able to respond adequately in this hazardous environment, right? I think we can see that in this particular scenario (which goes beyond just sandbagging and handing out sandwiches and water), GES may not be enough training.
GTM1 May not be enough training.
If it is too dangerous or the task is outside our ability to do it......we don't do it.
QuoteNow let's say the IC uses his/her judgment and decides to use personnel with GTM3 instead, which is technically not required. GTM3 personnel, while most likely better prepared than those with just GES, will not necessarily have all the skills or knowledge related to DR responses, since DR is not part of their training curriculum. Specialized DR training and a corresponding qualification could prove quite useful for those responses that go beyond just putting sand in a bag or handing out water.
Got no problem with that....in fact if you read back to my posts you will see that that is exactly in line with what I have been saying all alonge.
This whole thread started because one Eclipse disagreed with his Wing Commander's assessment of the DR call out in his wing. The problem here is that Person X wants to impose his personal standard to ALL situations via regulations and doctrine instead of letting the leaders on the scene make the call.
QuoteWe may not see eye to eye on how to approach this, but at least we can agree that we want to have personnel able to respond to a disaster, provide a valuable service and do it safely. At the end, our membership is our most valuable asset and we want to make sure we provide them with the tools they need to accomplish the mission successfully, without becoming themselves victims or liabilities. Cheers!
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 25, 2013, 03:30:59 PM
Let's use your example in a different setting. Sandbagging is needed in a flooded area. There are power lines down. There is damaged property and injured people all around... You get the picture. Since there's no requirement from National to use GTM personnel, anyone with a GES should be able to respond adequately in this hazardous environment, right? I think we can see that in this particular scenario (which goes beyond just sandbagging and handing out sandwiches and water), GES may not be enough training.
So, there are live power lines, damaged property and hurt people and we're going in to do...what? We're not going to get called in those situations, that isn't a CAP environment. If we are dispatched to that, then shame on the IC for dispatching teams without understanding the environment they might find.
If we were asked to do something simple in the GES realm and showed up to find a disaster with live power lines, damaged property and hurt people, I hope the team would improvise and response to the immediate need...
just like any other citizen should. And that as a part of that, the senior members in charge would make a decision about whether or not they think it could be done safely, consulting with the dispatching group as necessary. The fact is, CAP or no CAP, if you show up and find people hurt, you have a humanitarian duty to render what aid you can, subject to reasonable safety precautions.
I can't begin to imagine the moral and PR damage if a CAP pulled out of an area because it was too dangerous and left injured people behind.
Quote from: jeders on April 25, 2013, 05:03:26 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 25, 2013, 03:30:59 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 25, 2013, 04:10:56 AM
And these are the hazards that he is likely to encounter while sandbagging?
You keep bringing up the sandbagging example, but that's not the problem. The fact remains that our current National CAP policy does not address DR responses or training adequately.
Let's use your example in a different setting. Sandbagging is needed in a flooded area. There are power lines down. There is damaged property and injured people all around...
...
Specialized DR training and a corresponding qualification could prove quite useful for those responses that go beyond just putting sand in a bag or handing out water.
Actually, what would be most useful is a Safety Officer, because that's where the go/no go decision is going to come from if we have power lines on the ground. The best thing is, we already have that.
NO.....Safety Officer's advise the commander.....they don't make decisions.
Sorry.....you touched one of my hot buttons.
QuoteNow here's my response, have you ever been on an actual ground DR mission? I've been on several, ranging from flooding to tornadoes (meaning downed power lines and injured people). Do you want to know what the GTM trained CAP personnel like myself were doing when the call for warm bodies went out during the initial phase, directing ARC volunteers in making sandwiches, directing people to the shelter, and similar non-hazardous items. And what were we doing during the aftermath might you ask, damage assessment for Red Cross assistance, managing a shelter, driving around passing out water, and recruiting. None of that was covered by GTM training, and none of it was hazardous. We didn't do the hazardous stuff because there was a CAP IC who used his head and said we don't need to be plucking people out of a fast moving river, but we can still assist even if we don't have a DR qual.
:)
Quote from: johnnyb47 on April 25, 2013, 05:49:41 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 25, 2013, 04:10:56 AM
Quote from: johnnyb47 on April 25, 2013, 01:44:43 AMA GTM3 should know to never put his fingers into the mouth of someone having a seizure because they have had first aid training. A GTM3 know which natural hazards to avoid. A GTM3 knows what to expect to some degree when walking up to a crash site and has training about what should be done in the event of a find, etc. While I don't think it fully prepares them for the worst case scenario it is something.
And these are the hazards that he is likely to encounter while sandbagging?
Basic first aid due to overexertion/pre-existing conditions, knowing which snakes, stinging insects and other wildlife live in your area and how to avoid them and knowing what to do in the event that someone who drowned up-stream is floating past in the body of water along which you are sandbagging? Yeah I would say those are some of the things we should be prepping for in sandbagging operations.
Well then since we are planning for all eventualities.....we need to.....xyz. You can play that game all day for all specilties to the point where we can't go out the door.
Quote from: bflynn on April 25, 2013, 05:54:37 PMIf we were asked to do something simple in the GES realm and showed up to find a disaster with live power lines, damaged property and hurt people, I hope the team would improvise and response to the immediate need...just like any other citizen should. And that as a part of that, the senior members in charge would make a decision about whether or not they think it could be done safely, consulting with the dispatching group as necessary. The fact is, CAP or no CAP, if you show up and find people hurt, you have a humanitarian duty to render what aid you can, subject to reasonable safety precautions.
No, if we roll up to something out of scope, we let the IC know and leave immediately.
Period.
Quote from: bflynn on April 25, 2013, 05:54:37 PM
I can't begin to imagine the moral and PR damage if a CAP pulled out of an area because it was too dangerous and left injured people behind.
I can't begin to imagine the moral and PR damage to CAP if one of our people gets hurt, especially a cadet, being involved in a situation where they
didn't belong to start with.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 25, 2013, 05:55:25 PM
NO.....Safety Officer's advise the commander.....they don't make decisions.
Sorry.....you touched one of my hot buttons.
Well...anyone, including the MSO, can put a halt to unsafe situations. It's their job to look for hazards, and if an MSO wastes his time finding and briefing an IC before putting a stop to something that's unsafe, shame on him.
With all this talk about training how many have taken advantage of the safety power point presentations in e-services. Although basic in material they cover Downed power lines, Hurricane preparedness, Flooding, winter driving, wind chill, lightning safety to name a few. If a unit would use these presentations and quizzes it would give their members some information on safety hazards they may encounter on DR missions and what safety measures and risk controls they should be aware of. If a unit was proactive they could show the appropriate presentation when seasons change and different weather related disasters may occur.
Ha!
My feeling about the Safety Officer in a previous unit was that he always, but always geared his presentations to flying, taxing, and airplane-related topics. Never to ground team-practical stuff like that which you are suggesting. Several times I made that comment to him. It was a lot of arguing to get him to do a safety presentation on cold and hot weather injuries. He did it but this "disrupted his master briefing schedule." And when I mentioned this to my squadron commander, he said I had to enlist the help of the two deputy commanders to have him change his briefings...
Flyer
Quote from: lordmonar on April 25, 2013, 05:55:25 PM
NO.....Safety Officer's advise the commander.....they don't make decisions.
Sorry.....you touched one of my hot buttons.
Sorry, that's what happens when I type faster than I think. What I meant to say is that the go/no go decision is going to be coming from the command section, of which the safety officer is a part, and more specifically from the IC. However, in many incidents that are just starting out, the IC is the safety officer, as well as every other base staff position.
If we are given a situation with multiple large hazards, then the MSO is going to be responsible for, or assist in, creating a plan to mitigate the risks. That plan may include not sending CAP personnel into an area with downed live electrical lines until the hazard is taken care of.
Quote from: flyer333555 on April 25, 2013, 07:23:19 PM
Ha!
My feeling about the Safety Officer in a previous unit was that he always, but always geared his presentations to flying, taxing, and airplane-related topics. Never to ground team-practical stuff like that which you are suggesting. Several times I made that comment to him. It was a lot of arguing to get him to do a safety presentation on cold and hot weather injuries. He did it but this "disrupted his master briefing schedule." And when I mentioned this to my squadron commander, he said I had to enlist the help of the two deputy commanders to have him change his briefings...
Flyer
In my squadron, we have two safety education presentations a month: one for cadets and one for senior members. The one for senior members, at least when I do it, usually has two topics: one focused on ground and the other on flight safety. Both ground and flight safety education are necessary and relevant to our missions.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 25, 2013, 06:37:31 PM
Quote from: bflynn on April 25, 2013, 05:54:37 PMIf we were asked to do something simple in the GES realm and showed up to find a disaster with live power lines, damaged property and hurt people, I hope the team would improvise and response to the immediate need...just like any other citizen should. And that as a part of that, the senior members in charge would make a decision about whether or not they think it could be done safely, consulting with the dispatching group as necessary. The fact is, CAP or no CAP, if you show up and find people hurt, you have a humanitarian duty to render what aid you can, subject to reasonable safety precautions.
No, if we roll up to something out of scope, we let the IC know and leave immediately.
Period.
Quote from: bflynn on April 25, 2013, 05:54:37 PM
I can't begin to imagine the moral and PR damage if a CAP pulled out of an area because it was too dangerous and left injured people behind.
I can't begin to imagine the moral and PR damage to CAP if one of our people gets hurt, especially a cadet, being involved in a situation where they
didn't belong to start with.
So if you show up and it isn't exactly what you expect, you leave? What if there are no downed power lines or damage, just some injured people? Do you say "this is out of scope, we can't do this, if someone gets hurt, we're in trouble? CYA at the expense of some else's?"
I really hope not. I really, really hope every member of this organization has more dedication and moral fiber than that.
You handle it how you handle. Period. I'm going to take my shirt off and get to work.
Quote from: bflynn on April 25, 2013, 08:27:27 PMYou handle it how you handle. Period. I'm going to take my shirt off and get to work.
You're free to do whatever you like as a private citizen, as a CAP member who values your membership, you have a tight lane in regards to what you are allowed to do in uniform,
as an instrumentality of the Federal Government.
And from a philosophical perspective, you need to pick an angle - either its "no time for back up, shoulder roll in", or it's a "low-tempo operation with low risk".
I'm from the government, I'm not allowed to help.
Roger.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 25, 2013, 06:37:31 PM
I can't begin to imagine the moral and PR damage to CAP if one of our people gets hurt, especially a cadet, being involved in a situation where they
didn't belong to start with.
They are called heros.
Quote from: JeffDG on April 25, 2013, 06:56:21 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 25, 2013, 05:55:25 PM
NO.....Safety Officer's advise the commander.....they don't make decisions.
Sorry.....you touched one of my hot buttons.
Well...anyone, including the MSO, can put a halt to unsafe situations. It's their job to look for hazards, and if an MSO wastes his time finding and briefing an IC before putting a stop to something that's unsafe, shame on him.
Different situations.
Yes anyone on the spot can see a danger and say Knock It Off......but in now way shape or form should the safety officer be "making the call".
The IC, The OSC, the AOBD/GBD, the GTL/PIC....yes.....but not the Safety Officer. He advises the command staff.....he is NOT in the chain of command.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 25, 2013, 09:08:55 PMThey are called heros.
I believe the term you are looking for is "casualties". Also, "former members" and "Plaintiff" may also be appropriate.
Seriously, which CAP are you in where you just run out the door and do "whatever" with no regulations or rules?
We have safety presentations and rules on how to back up a vehicle, but we're just going to do "whatever" because of some misguided idea that
while we can't provide medical care we can provide "ALL OTHER?"
This discussion is going nowhere. So DR training is not needed...ever...under no circumstances. Checked. Developing a national standardized training curriculum and qualification for DR is a waste of time. Checked. And since anyone with no training what so ever can fill sandbags and give out water, then why even bother requiring our members to do GES? Forget training! Let's just get everyone together, roll up our sleeves and get to work! >:D
DISCLAIMER: This post makes extensive use of sarcasm.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 25, 2013, 09:11:26 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 25, 2013, 09:08:55 PMThey are called heros.
I believe the term you are looking for is "casualties". Also, "former members" and "Plaintiff" may also be appropriate.
Seriously, which CAP are you in where you just run out the door and do "whatever" with no regulations or rules?
We have safety presentations and rules on how to back up a vehicle, but we're just going to do "whatever" because of some misguided idea that
while we can't provide medical care we can provide "ALL OTHER?"
What CAP are you in? Where you are too afraid to commit to anything becasue you are too afraid of getting sued or getting bad PR.
We are specficially talking about a situation where there are no rules.
We are talking about being a leader and getting CAP's mission of helping our community, state and nation in times of need.
If we follow your philosophy.....it's just "thanks for calling....but we don't do that sort of thing." because we have no SQRT for it.
That is one of the reasons why no one calls us for us.....we keep telling them no.
If we are in the decision making chain....by all means use your good judgment based on the situation at hand......because it is impossible to write regulaitons that cover everything.
But keep the true goal of the organisation in mind at all time.
I see this thread heading to a lock...
Quote from: lordmonar on April 25, 2013, 09:18:42 PM
We are specficially talking about a situation where there are no rules.
We are talking about being a leader and getting CAP's mission of helping our community, state and nation in times of need.
If it costs me my CAP membership in order to help someone, I'd be OK with that. I'd rather it not happen, but I can live with getting kicked out of CAP - it would be a hugh sign that CAP is not an organization that shares my values. I would have a hard time living with knowing that someone had died because I valued my CAP membership too much to risk it. If I ever get to that point, I hope I have the integrity to quit first.
For now - I can say that if I arrive at a scene to hand out sandwiches and learn that a tornado hit 2 minutes before, I'll try to call the IC and clarify our mission. We will take every safety precaution we can, but we're in an emergency situation. Every member should be empowered to respond both to emergency conditions as well as unexpected conditions encountered during any mission.
As adults and private citizens, we're entitled to make certain decisions according to our personal values, convictions and conscience. As CAP officers and leaders, we have a responsibility to those under our command and must be cautious that those decisions don't jeopardized others, especially cadets, and put them in unnecessary risk.
We're all volunteers, those who don't feel comfortable doing the job on scene... aren't. Anyone on scene has already accepted the risk, a leader with his head in certain orifices can't do too much more than create a situation where the risks everyone involved already accepted come to fruition... quals still need to be done, but common sense things like the OP's concerns should be handled with an op plan and a comprehensive ORM briefing. That's it.