DR Doctrine, and lack thereof

[lordmonar]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

Since when is common sense "common", especially among 12 year olds?

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.

Which is WHOLLY INAPPROPRIATE and a serious mission liability, as was pointed out clearly in THAT discussion.

[Eclipse]

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.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

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. 

[lordmonar]

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.

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?

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.

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.   

[Eclipse]

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.

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".

[Eclipse]

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.

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.

[Storm Chaser]

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

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.

[Luis R. Ramos]

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

[Eclipse]

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.

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.   

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".

[wuzafuzz]

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.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

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.

[Storm Chaser]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Eclipse]

"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.

[johnnyb47]

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.

[Eclipse]

^ Excellently put.