CAP and EMT's

[lordmonar]

Granted we should be forming up as Type III/IV teams right now, but CAP doesn't even have a plan right now. I can train my people, but I can't certify them & even if I could I couldn't deploy them cause CAP has a whole lot of HUA syndrome going on.

I don't understand what you are talking about....we have a whole program on how to train our ground teams...as far as I know FEMA has yet to define what the required training is.  It leaves it up to the Agency with Jurisdiction to determine.

[lordmonar]

Actually, the reg says level of training, but the current legal policy says nothing beyond basic first aid for life saving purposes only regardless of training, and they're serious about that.

No "policy" supercedes our regulations (or ICLs) so if such a policy exists (please provide citation) it is irrelevant. 

Beg to differ....when you corporation legal says don't do it...that is it....if you do it and you get sued.....CAP will just say "he was not following our policy" and you would be on your own.

And that is the core of the argument.

EMTs...RNs....LPNs....and Dr all have professional liability issues they have to be worried about.  You can't ask a professional EMT to "volunteer" his time and training to CAP and then cover him in the event of a law suit.

[DNall]

NIMS is not a prescription, it is a national, flexible, framework for standardization.

Okay, this is another frame of reference issue like river had a second ago. Yes, from the national level talking to local depts it is a framework of suggested training they'd like for you to have at the local level. However, going the other direction, with local depts responding across the country & then being piecemealed out with other agencies in an expeditionary force structure, in that situation the training standards get enforced.

People are nice about it, but if your agency has a reputation for not being qualified to industry standards, or having lose check standards, then you get A) not invited/activated, or b) assigned crap work way after the fact that isn't changing anyone's life. Any of that sound familiar?

Your local fire or sheriff's dept may not care much about that stuff, especially when they need ground and/or air search capabilities & they got no one else to turn to, but FEMA, CG, 1AF, 5th Army, National Guard.... all those kinds of folks do very much care.

CAP is a special beast with special rules, functions, obligations, and limitations, we are not your neighborhood SAR team, we're "other", and as such, we'll continue to work as we have, NIMS or not.

Let me tell you about "work as we have." 10 years ago we ran full-on joint coastal SaRExs with Coast Guard. We were treated as equals with them. We had officers in their command center & vice versa. We joint planned & attacked an overall joint mission together sharing resources & playing off each other's strengths & weaknesses. We went on to execute that same dynamic in several major real world searches. That went on for about 4-5 years straight.

Then ICS came along. CAP was slow to adapt & got dropped. Now we don't meet industry training standards, and we don't have a strong qualification verification system - and we have a reputation for all of that.

So, Ike rolls thru here. We get a state mission to take pictures. Okay, that's fine, but it's not emergency response & not really being used for emergency response. We do a little tiny bit of photo work for FEMA & NWS, fly a few politicians, hand out supplies at PODs alongside little kids, church groups, and basically anyone that feels like showing up, and we're not even in charge of the sites. A week later we started turning off ELTs. I talked to the CG Dist 8 & the local SaR controller. they couldn't give a crap less about EPIRBs that far after the storm. They were just letting them die off & he didn't even care what we were working or understand why we were wasting resources on it. There was a federal ICP in clear lake. We didn't have a liaison there, we didn't even know it existed till a more than a week after the storm. We were not part of the overall air operations plan. We weren't considered for any ground role. A quarter of my state was in massive distress & needed every bit of help it could get. CAP had no role of any consequence in that situation. We did some nice stuff, and some academic research was probably advanced a little bit from our photos, but not one person was saved & no response by anyone was sped up or assisted in any significant way because of our activity.

So... what the hell am I spending all this time & money training for? If I can't answer that question for myself, how the hell do I answer it in a way that inspires confidence & commitment in my troops?

I have a lot of trained, experienced, and capable people; and, I got a lot of worthless and/or untrained/unqualified/incapable people. I got no system to tell the two apart on paper. I got no system to verify that the squared away guys are squared away, at least not that anyone outside CAP would accept. And I got no support system that'll get these folks called out & assigned any real work.

NIMS does not change an organization's mission, capabilities, or limitations, its simply a way to categorize and standardize resources as they are sent.

That's right. It doesn't change organizations. What it does is seperate posers from operators. And, in doing so it sets standards, which organizations then look at & choose to change their internal training/standards in order to be categorized as operators in the future rather than posers.

There was a time - actually the whole history of CAP till this system was adopted about five or six years ago... yeah look CAP has always had a bunch of people that didn't meet the mark, and then a stronger core group that could do ES at a high level. Our reputation used to be based on that tip of the spear group. Now, we're instilling a least common denominator system & averaging those front end operators down with 12yo cadets & 68yo grandmothers doing admin. What we aren't doing is changing our standards & adapting to the state of industry standards that our major customers are demanding of us in order to make any contribution of significance.

This idea that NIMS is going to force CAP, or any other agency, to radically change their core mission or capabilities is silly, and blatantly agenda driven by the (understandably) frustrated medical professionals who are handcuffed during CAP operations.

CAP is not a first-responder agency, is not tasked or capable today of providing anything more than basic, community-level first aid, most for team safety, and that's fine with the majority of members.

CAP does not NOW consider itself a a first responder agency. However, a plane goes missing & CAP is lead agency on that search, first on scene... that's the definition of first responder.

I'm not at all arguing that we should change our core missions/capabilities. We've always had & executed these capabilities. It's only within the last decade that we've let legal issues change that, and in doing so have given up significant capabilities, that because of major changes in the larger SaR sector (mostly NIMS driven) that's lost us significant reputation & mission taskings.

I don't propose we have PJ-type field medical operators out there providing massive EMS services on the types of missions we have now, much less responding to new medical missions because we have these folks with us. I'm telling you first aid for team/community care is fine on a UDF mission in a van on surface streets. It's less than optimal walking around a leveled city where you need to be wearing a mask, require tetanus shots if you get a scratch, the hospital is destroyed, there are no services, and it's going to take me 2-4hrs to get you any outside medical help and that's only if you're critical & I can get a helo in to take you out - that's what Galveston Island was & for the most part still is right now.

Actually, the reg says level of training, but the current legal policy says nothing beyond basic first aid for life saving purposes only regardless of training, and they're serious about that.

No "policy" supercedes our regulations (or ICLs) so if such a policy exists (please provide citation) it is irrelevant. 

Beg to differ....when you corporation legal says don't do it...that is it....if you do it and you get sued.....CAP will just say "he was not following our policy" and you would be on your own.

Policy ALWAYS supersedes regs. Policy is the interpretation of regs according to advice (in this case legal & medical) and IAW commander's intent. Regs are one of several authoritative sources from which commanders develop SOPs. Troops operate according to SOPs, they don't read regs to determine the source or argue the interpretation. That's above your paygrade. When you're a wing commander you can have that conversation. Until then, the best you can hope for is effecting that interpretation that makes it into SOP at the sub-wing level.

[Dragoon]

Gotta chime in here - it has been two years since the threads started on "The Sky is Falling!  We're not NIMS certified!  We aren't going to get our National Mandated ID cards!  And we'll never get another mission ever again!"

So far, the mission tempo nationwide hasn't changed.  And I've yet to find one credible story of us being excluded because we aren't on the bleeding edge of NIMS.

So here's the challenge - if anyone knows, for a FACT, that CAP was excluded from a major mission because we aren't the sterling example of NIMS/ICS compliance, please PM me with the following:

1.  Description and dates of the incident
2.  A description of what CAP did and didn't get to do.
3.  The name and contact info for the decison maker who chose to exclude CAP.

I will happily call the guy and verify the veracity of the story, and post the results here.

What I've seen being the major problem with getting called out is that CAP doesn't keep the lines of commo active with all the myriad folks who can run missions, so we only get involved when USAF gets asked for assistance, and they pass it down to us.   In other words, a failure of marketing rather than a failure in compliance.  And that's been a problem for at least 25 years.  We're just not well wired on the local level, and many missions are local.

[isuhawkeye]

could the argument be made that NIMS compliancy (and an active movemant towards those standards) is a major part of any organizations external marketing effort.

I do not know of any organization at any level is a "sterling example of NIMS compliance".  even the coast guard had to make its own course as a stop gep towards nims compliance.

sent from my treo phone

[Eclipse]

could the argument be made that NIMS compliancy (and an active movement towards those standards) is a major part of any organizations external marketing effort.

NIMS is the Sarbanes-Oxley of ES.

Important to people its important to, uninteresting the to "real" world.  We might as well add ISO 9000 and PCI-DSS to the marketing sheets for all that it would mean to recruiting.

[RiverAux]

Actually, the reg says level of training, but the current legal policy says nothing beyond basic first aid for life saving purposes only regardless of training, and they're serious about that.

No "policy" supercedes our regulations (or ICLs) so if such a policy exists (please provide citation) it is irrelevant. 

Beg to differ....when you corporation legal says don't do it...that is it....if you do it and you get sued.....CAP will just say "he was not following our policy" and you would be on your own.

Please provide a citation for such a policy.  The CAP knowledgebase has an answer on the subject with a note from legal that basically re-states the wording of the regulation.   

[Dragoon]

could the argument be made that NIMS compliancy (and an active movemant towards those standards) is a major part of any organizations external marketing effort.

I do not know of any organization at any level is a "sterling example of NIMS compliance".  even the coast guard had to make its own course as a stop gep towards nims compliance.

sent from my treo phone

Exactly.  Everyone is struggling with this.  And as far as I can tell, lack of compliance is not only the norm anywhere right now. It's also not losing us missions.

Marketing us to Sheriff's Departments, State Emergency Management Agencies, National Guard Adjutant Generals as "NIMS compliant" matters if and only if they care.

What it more important is to let these folks know "hey, these are the capabilities we have, and here's how to get ahold of us."  And keep reminding them constantly, because people turn over and phone numbers change.  NIMS or not, if they need airplanes and they know we got 'em AND they know how to get ahold of us, they'll call.

One reason CAP isn't very good at this is because we work on weekends, and these folks work during weekdays.  If you want to got see them to discuss CAP, you need to do it during business hours.  When they have DR exercises, they tend to have them during the week.  And the most logical CAP liaison to contact them or participate in the exercise may very well not be able to get off work.  This has been a constant problem for many, many years.

The big reason is that we're aligned as a federal force, and only secondarily as a state force.  This is why I wish CAP was aligned under the National Guard Bureau, to bring us closer to the TAGs who get the state calls for DR assistance.


Someday, maybe, NIMS will actually be required.  We'll all be entered in some central registry.  And those without registration will not be able to play.  This will probably be a good thing.    But two years after this topic was first breached, it's still a long, long way off.

[DNall]

Gotta chime in here - it has been two years since the threads started on "The Sky is Falling!  We're not NIMS certified!  We aren't going to get our National Mandated ID cards!  And we'll never get another mission ever again!"

So far, the mission tempo nationwide hasn't changed.  And I've yet to find one credible story of us being excluded because we aren't on the bleeding edge of NIMS.

So here's the challenge - if anyone knows, for a FACT, that CAP was excluded from a major mission because we aren't the sterling example of NIMS/ICS compliance, please PM me with the following:

1.  Description and dates of the incident
2.  A description of what CAP did and didn't get to do.
3.  The name and contact info for the decison maker who chose to exclude CAP.

I will happily call the guy and verify the veracity of the story, and post the results here.

What I've seen being the major problem with getting called out is that CAP doesn't keep the lines of commo active with all the myriad folks who can run missions, so we only get involved when USAF gets asked for assistance, and they pass it down to us.   In other words, a failure of marketing rather than a failure in compliance.  And that's been a problem for at least 25 years.  We're just not well wired on the local level, and many missions are local.

I believe I stated that already.

1) Ike came thru here.

2) What we did:

a) There was a federal ICP in clear lake. CAP was not invited to even have a liaison present. There was a massive federal mission going on, and no place in it for CAP.

b) We flew a couple sorties for FEMA, which honestly were taking picture of their relief effort to go in power point presentations to their bosses about what they were doing. It had nothing to do with damage assessment or anyone's response.

c) We flew a couple sightseeing flights for NWS forecasters, not assessment or even academic documentation.

d) we ran an ELT mission. There were thousands going off. They were all obviously bogus. Coast Guard didn't care, waiting for them to die, didn't care what we were responding to, and wouldn't respond to any themselves unless they thought they were legit emergencies. AFRCC wanted to close the mission after a couple days, but we kept it open to keep turning stuff off as training, but it was more sightseeing than accomplishing anything meaningful.

e) We flew a massive air photo mission for the state. However, none of that was really about assessment for the purposes of disaster response. It was more for academic study of the damage, state insurance board, etc. I'm not at all against us doing that, secondary to our federal and/or emergency response missions. It may well help make decisions about how they rebuild so it won't be so bad, or help to plan for future disasters.

f) we also sent volunteers our to PODs to hand out supplies. That started out with a small city out of the major damage area complaining on teh news they weren't getting federal support, and getting supplies from the houston food bank thru a local church, and CAP got asked by a former member to help out. When FEMA got pressured into sending over supplies, we helped out at their location along side little kids, church groups, and anyone else that felt like showing up.

What we didn't do:
- any meaningful disaster response activity at all
- any actual SaR mission
- any ground mission other than non-distress UDF & look good on the news
- much of anything on behalf of the federal govt.

3) The decision makers involved were FEMA primarily on the civilian side, TAG & SOC on the state side.

My point is we have capabilities and are not allowed to do anything of consequence cause we're mere volunteers. It has nothing to do with some online courses or not. I agree that no one really cares about that crap.

It does have a lot to do with actual training/qualifications/capabilities/standards though. What we have is a huge joke by comparison to industry standards & really doesn't put us in a position to do anything meaningful.

FEMA has other standards. Are they black & white do exactly this or don't show up? Of course not, but we're no where even remotely close to those standards, and that's our reputation, which in turn defines the missions we get or don't get.

On the air side, those guys want to fly. If they get that done & feel like they're doing something for someone in the process then all the better. On the ground we're a lot more limited. It has to actually be disaster response/SaR type stuff. You can't survey birds or environmental conditions with a GT - at least you can't get people to train for GT so they can do that worthless stuff.

[RiverAux]

My point is we have capabilities and are not allowed to do anything of consequence cause we're mere volunteers.

Disagree.  The Red Cross is made up of volunteers but it has a very prominent role and is integral to disaster response at all levels of government.  Heck, didn't congress just give them 100 million or something like that? 

The reason CAP's ground capabilities are not utilized more in major disasters are that 1) CAP doesn't really advertise that we've got them to any great extent -- we focus on getting air missions and 2) we have not yet developed any clear role for ourselves in these situations. 

[arajca]

and 3) too many of our members lack a professional attitude.

[RiverAux]

Disagree with that as well.  If poor professional attitude was a problem we wouldn't get as many requests as we do for aviation-missions from other agencies.  I'm not aware of any specific bias against using CAP ground teams because they're not perceived as being professional. 

[RADIOMAN015]

Regarding the Red Cross, that was REIMBURSEMENT they requested/received under the Stafford Disaster Relief & Emergency Assistance Act See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stafford_Disaster_Relief_and_Emergency_Assistance_Act.   (funny I can't seem to find a press release on the ARC website that they got that reimbursement).

I again think primarily CAP role nationwide is Disaster Relief is airborne/aircraft related, versus ground ops (and probably will remain this way for years to come).   It is easier to put together a team for this air missions/activity than the ground operations side (you can fly into & out of many disaster situations the same day, etc).  Granted that in very local circumstances, press releases seem to indcate that some CAP units may provide some limited support, e.g. food distribution, sand bag filling, shelter/feeding assistance etc.   I don't think that national hdqs wants to advertising capabilities that aren't a sure thing.  Also for those members that are EMT's/Paramedics etc, CAP's policy is "first aid" training/assistance nothing more.  Those with advanced medical skills, probably a good group to volunteer with FEMA's Disaster Medical Assistance Team (DMAT) see: http://www.dmat.org/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_Medical_Assistance_Team and I think you actually will get paid (GS 9 level and above) if you are deployed into a disaster area.   Also there's probably other Search/Rescue organizations in your specific geographic area, that could probably better utilize EMT/paramedic skills.  
RADIOMAN

My point is we have capabilities and are not allowed to do anything of consequence cause we're mere volunteers.

Disagree.  The Red Cross is made up of volunteers but it has a very prominent role and is integral to disaster response at all levels of government.  Heck, didn't congress just give them 100 million or something like that? 

The reason CAP's ground capabilities are not utilized more in major disasters are that 1) CAP doesn't really advertise that we've got them to any great extent -- we focus on getting air missions and 2) we have not yet developed any clear role for ourselves in these situations. 

[RiverAux]

Also for those members that are EMT's/Paramedics etc, CAP's policy is "first aid" training/assistance nothing more.

For the second time in this thread I will ask for a citation limiting CAP members to doing no more than providing basic first aid. 

I have already provided CAP regulation citations showing that CAP EMTs could perform any medical aid within the realm of their training if it was needed to save a life. 

[CadetProgramGuy]

From Knowledgebase.....

What is the level of care a licensed health-care provider (EMT, nurse, physician, etc) can provide while acting as a CAP member?

  Answer
  From the CAP General Counsel:

CAP Policy is that CAP is not an emergency medical care or paramedic organization and should not advertise itself as such. CAP will not be the primary provider of medical support on missions or training events though qualified personnel can be used to support such activities. The only type of medical aid that should be administered by CAP personnel or by any other person at CAP's request is reasonable first aid deemed necessary to save a life or prevent human suffering and executed by a person qualified to attempt such medical care within their skill level. See CAP REGULATION 60-3 (E) CAP EMERGENCY SERVICES TRAINING AND OPERATIONAL MISSIONS Paragraph 1-21f below.

Civil Air Patrol does not provide professional liability or malpractice insurance for members. A state's good Samaritan law may provide some protection for members administering medical care consistent with their training and license, and the wing legal officer should be consulted for state specific information.

CAP General Counsel

1-21f. First Aid and Emergency Medical Care. CAP is not an emergency medical care or paramedic organization and should not advertise itself as such. CAP will not be the primary provider of medical support on missions or training events though qualified personnel can be used to support such activities. The only type of medical aid that should be administered by CAP personnel or by any other person at CAP's request is reasonable first aid deemed necessary to save a life or prevent human suffering and executed by a person qualified to attempt such medical care within their skill level

[RiverAux]

Yes, that is basically a re-statement of the regulations which would allow a CAP EMT to do anything they are trained to do to save a life. 

[PHall]

River, you're reading into this what you want to see.

The General Counsel's statemeant is pretty clear to me. If you treat some one and they or their family decides to sue, you better hope your state has a Good Samaritan law because CAP will not cover you legally.

So, are your malpractice insurance payments current?

[DNall]

My point is we have capabilities and are not allowed to do anything of consequence cause we're mere volunteers.

Disagree.  The Red Cross is made up of volunteers but it has a very prominent role and is integral to disaster response at all levels of government.  Heck, didn't congress just give them 100 million or something like that? 

The reason CAP's ground capabilities are not utilized more in major disasters are that 1) CAP doesn't really advertise that we've got them to any great extent -- we focus on getting air missions and 2) we have not yet developed any clear role for ourselves in these situations. 

I disagree with that. A good portion of the Red Cross is NOT volunteer. It is a non-profit with a lot of paid staff who are supported by volunteer manpower under the supervision of trained mgmt. The paid versus not paid doesn't mean anything to anyone. The level of training/competence/documented standards/quals means the world. Red Cross does a good job with that, heck many of their courses are the industry standard.

CAP doesn't need to be well known by the public, just the operational directors. In general, they DO know about us. More specifically, the AF liaisons that are always in those decision making centers do absolutely know about CAP. I can guarantee you in this last situation that they knew we existed and our full range of capabilities, and they chose not to use those cause we weren't up to the tasks.

10-15 years ago, long before 9/11 or NIMS, those same people used us all the time & treated us as equals with agencies like Coast Guard & National Guard - I cited examples of operations. That was because, at the time, they assumed (incorrectly) that we met the same kind of standards. Since the rise of NIMS, a lot more light has been shown on agencies & we're now exposed for our actual qualification levels, which are not up to par. States - well I can only speak for mine - still make some of those incorrect assumptions &/or don't care at times, but the feds, specifically FEMA & 1AF, use people they trust with the taskings, and that isn't us at least not for anything meaningful.

It's not that our members don't behave professionally, though at times that's a bit of an issue. It's that they are incompetent. I know that's not true of everyone, but big picture... if I assemble a GTM3 level team by picking names off a list & no knowledge of the people, their experience, etc, just on a qual list, can I guarantee to a customer agency exactly the min level capability their getting? Absolutely not. And that's using an internal CAP rating system that no one else remotely understands. The purpose of NIMS is to fix both aspects of that issue.

[wingnut55]

Excellent Thread

We do need more ELTs but only to support our mission, I think it is silly to think a ground team can go out without an EMT. but that EMT should support our mission. We are not a rescue organization, maybe at one time. that function is carried out much better at the State and local level. In Calif. the county Sheriff Departments field some excellent volunteers who if I might add do not bellyache at the training requirements.

[arajca]

Something to consider about EMT's on GT's:
Unless they're carrying a full jump kit, an EMT is only going to be able to perform the same tasks as a first responder or first aid'er. EMT's are trained to use various peices of equipment and drugs well beyond first responders and first aid'ers. Without the equipment and drugs, they are no different than the others.

The jump kit is in adition to everything else carried in the field, not instead of it. Also, drugs have shelf lives, which, given the frequency that a CAP EMT would need them make that a waste of money because you'd be throwing them out before you can use them. When I was running with the FD, we regularly (read monthly) moved drugs to 'training' status (iv solutions for example) or just threw them out because they had expired.