DR Doctrine, and lack thereof

[Ned]

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

[lordmonar]

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.   

[lordmonar]

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.

[RiverAux]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[arajca]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[ol'fido]

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?

[NC Hokie]

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

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.

[Jaison009]

Hokie your post is exactly what I am an advocate for. Carve/Find a niche, become experts, become the asset.

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

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.

[oldtimer]

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. 

[bflynn]

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.

[That Anonymous Guy]

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.

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.

[JeffDG]

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.

[sarmed1]

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

mk

[That Anonymous Guy]

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.

[Walkman]

(typed right as AG was typing his)

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

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.

[EMT-83]

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.