Will CAP ever give GSAR serious attention?

[RiverAux]

We have been replaced by technology, and lets face it, the tech does a better job. 

Just what technology has replaced ground sar teams in looking for lost persons?  I'd like to buy that gadget rather than walking through the woods and picking up ticks.

[isuhawkeye]

Some wings are also looking for so called "forward air controllers" that will be radio operators & mission management personnel that will deploy into an area to coordinate CAP aerial response for a local community or county/counties area. 

Isnt that an air branch director operating within the incident command system at the scene of the incident?

[tsrup]

We have been replaced by technology, and lets face it, the tech does a better job. 

Just what technology has replaced ground sar teams in looking for lost persons?  I'd like to buy that gadget rather than walking through the woods and picking up ticks.

Conceded, "replaced" was a poor choice of words. 

But you can bet that personal GPS locaters and new ELT technology takes a lot of the work out of what we used to do.

Who needs a gigantic search party when a person can be tracked by their cell phone or personal locator device. 

Do we still need to teach fundamental GSAR? Yes, 
Do we still need to learn and become proficient in GSAR? Absolutely
Should we complain that we are not being used like we used to? Not any more than we should cry that we no longer bomb u-boats. 

[RiverAux]

Hmm, yes its a good thing those 3 year olds and seniors that have wandered away from their homes all have those.

[vmstan]

And... batteries die.

[Eclipse]

But you can bet that personal GPS locaters and new ELT technology takes a lot of the work out of what we used to do.

Who needs a gigantic search party when a person can be tracked by their cell phone or personal locator device. 

If anything its added to our workload, at least in my wing.

People don't register their PLBs, but they like to play with them, and anytime we have an ELT these days it's automatically an aircraft plus at least two teams.  We've been at least as busy if not more so this year then "normal".

We've also had a number of missing persons and are watching the water as the floods start early this year.
Evolving missions?  Yes. Less? No.

As cash-strapped as most states are, if you not working, its either because of some law or policy that your state has that keeps you out of the game, regardless, or your people are talking to the right people.

[npfd505]

Dear RiverAux,

It is true that CAP should put more emphisis on our Ground Operations role.  How to accomplish this mission is tricky at best.  I live in a Wing were by state law the local sheriff has jurisdiction over searches.  Since we are in a time of fiscal stress, local law enforcement agencies (i.e. the sheriff) have been doing everything possible to justify costs.  They have been holding on tight to most searches since they can have "face time" in front of the ever present media.  The costs associated with Sheriff Rescue teams are much higher than CAP.  We (CAWG) should be working closely with the Sheriff so they can reap the financial benefit of using CAP ground teams.  Employing a volunteer unit to conduct searches can be fiscaly prudent for the local government.  Bottom line, we need to inform the folks that look over the politicians shoulders and show that we're cheap, we are trained, times are tough...use CAP to save $$$

[Rotorhead]

When I hear "CAP is not a first responder", it annoys me the same as "CAP is only volunteers" annoys me. It's an excuse for not being on the ball. And the more we repeat it the more true it will (has) become true.

If you want to be a first responder, you need to join one of the agencies in your area that is so designated.

CAP is not, and it has nothing to do with "being on the ball." We never have been first responders.

It is not our job. It is not how the organization is designed.

[Rotorhead]

Putting a man on the moon took a HUGE amount of resources that CAP does not have.

You're right, but more than that it took the WILL to make it happen. The question is does CAP have the will to embrace the GSAR role and all it entails (training, credentialing, etc.)?

We have a tough time getting people to take the ISC courses online as it is.

I don't see how we're going to get people to get more advanced certifications.

[RiverAux]

Dear RiverAux,

It is true that CAP should put more emphisis on our Ground Operations role.  How to accomplish this mission is tricky at best.  I live in a Wing were by state law the local sheriff has jurisdiction over searches.  Since we are in a time of fiscal stress, local law enforcement agencies (i.e. the sheriff) have been doing everything possible to justify costs.  They have been holding on tight to most searches since they can have "face time" in front of the ever present media.  The costs associated with Sheriff Rescue teams are much higher than CAP.  We (CAWG) should be working closely with the Sheriff so they can reap the financial benefit of using CAP ground teams.  Employing a volunteer unit to conduct searches can be fiscaly prudent for the local government.  Bottom line, we need to inform the folks that look over the politicians shoulders and show that we're cheap, we are trained, times are tough...use CAP to save $$$

I think you've described part of the problem very well in that any public agency is going to want to use its own resources first whenever possible so as to continue to justify their existence.  Thats just the nature of the beast.  However, in California where the sheriff's departments seem to be much more likely to have their own SAR teams, I'm not sure that focusing on the fact that CAP doesn't cost them anything is going to make a big difference.  They're not going to dump their SAR teams for CAP, nor should they.  I think there is enough work for everybody. 

In the case where you're "competing" for mission participation with a local SAR team, you've got to be able to show that you're good at what you're proposing to do.  We can't beat the local SAR teams on overall capability because of the limitations we've placed on ourselves concerning high-angle rescue and medical care.  So, we've got to be at least as good at them at what we can do - ground search in anything from urban areas to moderate mountain terrain.

Assuming our local teams can do this, which I think is certainly possible, then its all about developing relationships with the folks who are running the missions. 

But, I was really focusing on some of the "atmospherics" within CAP that holds us back in general in this area. 

[wuzafuzz]

Putting a man on the moon took a HUGE amount of resources that CAP does not have.

You're right, but more than that it took the WILL to make it happen. The question is does CAP have the will to embrace the GSAR role and all it entails (training, credentialing, etc.)?

We have a tough time getting people to take the ISC courses online as it is.

I don't see how we're going to get people to get more advanced certifications.

In my experience, the folks that really contribute to ES have had little heartburn about completing NIMS/ICS, as well as pursuing other training.  Of course that training needs to be reasonable for our expected missions.  Those missions vary by area, it might be ground SAR, it might be CERT, it might be helping ARC or SA.  Whatever it is, when we do show up we better be on the ball.  All that means is we are appropriately trained for our role and provide a professional showing.

People I know who are active in CAP ground teams and "pro" SAR see some value in CAP ground teams.  My squadron alone has four GTM/GTL's who are also on the local sheriff's SAR team.  They are great trainers; we sometimes do joint training and even joint missions with the "pro" team.  No one is pretending our ground teams intend to scale Everest, manage high angle rescues, or field CAP paramedics.  However, we do have our own niches where we bring value to the table. 

Relationships with other SAR teams vary, as do state and local laws affecting CAP GT's.  Although CAP is essentially locked out of ground SAR in some places, some of us are lucky enough to be located where our contributions are valued.

[wuzafuzz]

Since I have some experience in this I think I will chime in.

I had the unique opportunity to build some very successfull relationships. and participate in a number of missing person cases.  here are a few of my observations

1.  Recognise that every missing person case may be a law enforcement event.  This may mean that the lead law enforcement agency may restrict participation to CAPer's who are over 18

2.  Learn the specifics of your state MOU with AFRCC.  In Iowa the county sheriff has authority to request assistance directly.  sell that simple call and you can provide cap "free" top the end user

3.  Recognise that your ground team certification is comparable to NASAR's SAR tech II.  Train to the best of your ability, and be ready to discuss the differences in certifications


4.  Be knowledgeable .  Know that NASAR does not require rope work, repelling, or hundreds of feet of rope. 

5.  Learn the teams in your area, and their procedures.  Train with them

Build relationships and there is no reason that CAP cant play in the missing person search arena

As for with we could do at a national level, isuhawkeye nailed it with bullet points 3 and 4.  Why doesn't CAP simply adopt a national standard that is equivalent to our current SQTR's.  Might require a little tweaking.  The most significant real hurdle might be whatever testing is required to earn that cert.  Our current mindset that testing occurs on meeting nights might have to change a little.

[RiverAux]

As for with we could do at a national level, isuhawkeye nailed it with bullet points 3 and 4.  Why doesn't CAP simply adopt a national standard that is equivalent to our current SQTR's.  Might require a little tweaking.  The most significant real hurdle might be whatever testing is required to earn that cert.  Our current mindset that testing occurs on meeting nights might have to change a little.

Okay, I'll say it again -- NASAR is NOT THE NATIONAL STANDARD.  The closest thing out there to a national standard (which is set by the group sarkdak mentioned) is not actually required by anyone and no one at the local levels that run GSAR is ever going to have heard of it. 

NASAR just has a name which makes it seem like they are the national standard, when in fact CAP is the single largest GSAR organization in the country our standards are every bit as legit as theres.

Nevertheless, there is no evidence that our SQTRs have anything to do with the lack of recognition of the importance of GSAR within CAP, which is the point of this thread. 

[wuzafuzz]

As for with we could do at a national level, isuhawkeye nailed it with bullet points 3 and 4.  Why doesn't CAP simply adopt a national standard that is equivalent to our current SQTR's.  Might require a little tweaking.  The most significant real hurdle might be whatever testing is required to earn that cert.  Our current mindset that testing occurs on meeting nights might have to change a little.

Okay, I'll say it again -- NASAR is NOT THE NATIONAL STANDARD.  The closest thing out there to a national standard (which is set by the group sarkdak mentioned) is not actually required by anyone and no one at the local levels that run GSAR is ever going to have heard of it.

Is NASAR used by most SAR groups?  If so, then it is a defacto standard.  Notice I said "A", not "THE."  I've worked in careers where there is no official gov't mandated standard, but anyone who didn't possess the defacto standard wasn't competitive for promotions and was in danger from defense lawyers when testifying.  So whether or not NASAR or some other standard is absolutely required at a national level, we may benefit by going with the flow.

[RiverAux]

As CAP is the single largest GSAR organization in the country, perhaps they need to be going with our flow? 

Again, this is irrelevant to the purpose of this thread. 

[wuzafuzz]

As for with we could do at a national level, isuhawkeye nailed it with bullet points 3 and 4.  Why doesn't CAP simply adopt a national standard that is equivalent to our current SQTR's.  Might require a little tweaking.  The most significant real hurdle might be whatever testing is required to earn that cert.  Our current mindset that testing occurs on meeting nights might have to change a little.

Okay, I'll say it again -- NASAR is NOT THE NATIONAL STANDARD.  The closest thing out there to a national standard (which is set by the group sarkdak mentioned) is not actually required by anyone and no one at the local levels that run GSAR is ever going to have heard of it. 

NASAR just has a name which makes it seem like they are the national standard, when in fact CAP is the single largest GSAR organization in the country our standards are every bit as legit as theres.

Nevertheless, there is no evidence that our SQTRs have anything to do with the lack of recognition of the importance of GSAR within CAP, which is the point of this thread.

I responded before you edited, so here goes:
Regarding the perceived importance of GSAR within CAP, I'll suggest that if we train and market ourselves locally using a standard other SAR teams are familiar with, we will get more "air time."  National might notice that success and pay more attention to GSAR and what works.  Granted, that's only a chance.  IMHO national is more likely to pay attention to expanding other ground missions in the DR arena. 

[RiverAux]

If we're talking with other SAR teams that use them or that tiny percentage of sheriffs who might know what they are, I don't have any problem with CAP members talking about how our qualifications equate to various NASAR levels if that helps get the point across that our teams are trained. 

But, as we're talking about getting GSAR some attention within CAP, I don't see that as a winner either.  If CAP had some sort of real process for reviewing missions and their results it might quickly become apparent that that lost person searches and ground SAR are much more important than they are given credit. 

But, think about this...Have you ever seen a breakdown of the sorts of missions responsible for CAP saves?  Seen national pay any attention to anything other than aircraft flight time?  Any attention to how many people are actually involved in ground SAR sorties?  If national cared about any of that stuff they probably would have already realized that GSAR is increasing in importance to CAP while air SAR is on the decline.   

WWhile national isn't getting the picture, I think things may be changing a bit in my wing.  We haven't had a real air search in several years and the only real SAR missions we've had are on lost person searches where we've had a lot more ground than air sorties.  They've started to give a little more attention to our ground folks as a result, though we still aren't seeing any money for that sort of training -- its all being done locally on unfunded missions for the most part. 

[NavLT]

I agree with RiverAux when he points out that national does not seem to even want to look at hard #s for GSAR vs Air.

I recently had a breif spar about SAREX training with the DO where he asked me to make sure I was training people on searching for the 406Mhz with no 121.5 carrier because they were seeing more of those lately than ELT hunts.  I pointed out that with No DF gear for 406Mhz readily availible that meant sending Ground Teams to the GEO Cords of the fix (hopefully the 10M with GPS but no holding my breath).  But that we keep practicing digital photography for Ground sorties and no hasty or circle searches, no clue awareness, no containment.

The last 2 SAREXs scheduled in my wing were canceled do to poor flying weather....Because planes never crash in marginal to poor weather.   

With the entire conversion to WMIRS the approval and tracking of these missions is very very very transparent to the Region commander and the Liason Officers.  But given the Air Centric view I doubt they even bat an eye at months of no training because it was over cast or rainy. 

Historically (a sad truth) is that only when it hurts do people change course. Will CAP ever give GSAR serious attention? When a very public search makes it painful not to or a lawsuit reguarding us not meeting our advertised capabilities hits home (but not so much they just decide to stop doing it).

Proactive organizations change before it gets ugly or costs a life but I don't see that kind of energy at national.  They seem much more concerned about epaulet color or confirming fake rank.

V/R
Nav LT

[arajca]

A bright spot in an otherwise dismal topic...

I've been asked to help plan ground sorites for the upcoming AF Guided Training Exercise in COWG. The basic idea, which everyone I've discussed it with LOVES, is establishing a 'remote' ground operations base in the mountains and running a few ground teams on varied terrain, with a broad spectrum of communications capabilities. The State Director, a VERY experienced and respected IC, and several other Operations folks are supportive of this idea because they realize we need more ground team training and it needs to be incorporated from the start and not tacked on when ground teams show up at an exercise.

[RiverAux]

That is very good news as the lack of comprehension about GSAR issues by CAP-USAF staff is another major national level problem.  Most of them can wrap their head around the air SAR stuff and certainly understand running a mission staff, but need help on GSAR.  I've mentioned before about some of the ridiculously easy scenarios they've presented at SAREVALS in my wing because they just don't know any better.  I think the solution to that is to have a pool of very qualified CAP GSAR personnel that serve as a regional resource (as an extra duty, not to be assigned to Region) to help CAP-USAF plan GSAR scenarios at SAREVALs.