emergency service missions

[usafcap1]

If you could add more missions to CAPs emergency services and operations repertoire what would you add?   

[Spaceman3750]

The only limits of what we can do are the things that are explicitly prohibited (specialty rescue, assistance to LE, etc). Everything else is fair game given that we coordinate with the responsible agency for proper training and credentialing.

[RADIOMAN015]

I think CAP needs to stay within a reasonable mission "box".   The issue with missions is you have to have the sustainability (trained personnel) for those missions.  Sometimes, the local things are due to the efforts of one or two motivated individuals, when they leave that program will likely die.

I think anything to do with AIR support is ripe for expansion.  (Along with the typical mission base functions that support the air, including the new photo ops editing function)  The ground team field operations side of CAP still has really no strategic direction changes and is basically for the most part just a cadet retention tool (with perhaps with the exception of some real UDF team type activity).
RM

[Eclipse]

The ground team field operations side of CAP still has really no strategic direction changes and is basically for the most part just a cadet retention tool

Not in the wings actually engaged in actual SAR/DR.

Please insure you're speaking only for the places you have personal knowledge.

[Woodsy]

The prereq's for GOBD include GTL, which you need at least GTM3 to getm

We would have a lot more qualified IC's if that were changed.  Just saying, the only reason anyone around these parts qualifies as GTL or GTM3 is a path to GOBD, so they can then go on to IC. 

We have lot's of UDF missions around here, but in Florida, any sort of situation where one would need a 72 hour pack is hard to fathom. 

I would propose that GOBD require a GTL OR UDF. 

Why would I want to waste 4 SAREX's (2 sorties each for GTM3 and GTL) doing something useless that I'll never do again just to jump through the hoop on the route to IC?  No thanks, I'd rather fly anyways.  I  think we only have about 10 IC1's in the wing, and maybe 40 or so IC's period.  This process is hindering others from completing the process. 

[lordmonar]

I think you have your causality backwards.

If we did not make GTL or GTM3 a prereq for PSC (GOBD and MS or AOBD and GTM3)....it is not that we would get more ICs but we whould have even less qualified Ground teams.

The problem is that there is no OPLAN.   No one at any level is really tasked to provide X number of ICs, X number of OSCs/AOBDs/GOBDs/PSCs/MROs/FSC/etc and so on.....let alone X number of trained aircrews or trained and equiped ground teams.

[Spaceman3750]

The prereq's for GOBD include GTL, which you need at least GTM3 to getm

We would have a lot more qualified IC's if that were changed.  Just saying, the only reason anyone around these parts qualifies as GTL or GTM3 is a path to GOBD, so they can then go on to IC. 

We have lot's of UDF missions around here, but in Florida, any sort of situation where one would need a 72 hour pack is hard to fathom. 

I would propose that GOBD require a GTL OR UDF. 

Why would I want to waste 4 SAREX's (2 sorties each for GTM3 and GTL) doing something useless that I'll never do again just to jump through the hoop on the route to IC?  No thanks, I'd rather fly anyways.  I  think we only have about 10 IC1's in the wing, and maybe 40 or so IC's period.  This process is hindering others from completing the process.

You don't need GTL for PSC/OSC. Just AOBD+GTM3 or GBD+MS.

[Ed Bos]

I think CAP needs to stay within a reasonable mission "box".   The issue with missions is you have to have the sustainability (trained personnel) for those missions.  Sometimes, the local things are due to the efforts of one or two motivated individuals, when they leave that program will likely die.

This is exactly the mentality that will cause CAP to eventually become redundant and dissolve.

CAP needs to continue to partner with the AF, DoD and other agencies to find ways we can expand our mission set and stay ready, reliable, and relevant. Increasing our mission-set while maintaining our core capabilities is a huge part of that.

I think anything to do with AIR support is ripe for expansion.  (Along with the typical mission base functions that support the air, including the new photo ops editing function) 

I don't know what editing function you're talking about (have a link handy?), but I don't disagree with this sentiment.

The ground team field operations side of CAP still has really no strategic direction changes and is basically for the most part just a cadet retention tool (with perhaps with the exception of some real UDF team type activity).
RM

You're dead wrong. In several areas around the country CAP works closely with state and local agencies to greatly increase ground SAR capabilities. Even in the Massachusetts Wing (your wing, isn't it?), there are several mission developments that are driving training and tasking changes to keep the ground side of the house moving in a "strategic direction."  I was on the MAWG ES Staff a few years ago when we were working closely with the Mass State Police to showcase our capabilities and training, and I know that CAP still works in conjunction with them and MEMA.

What makes you think that any portion of Emergency Services is a "cadet retention tool." That seems like an awfully ignorant thing to say.

[Woodsy]

Agree with you on the quotas.  I know of that type of thing that is done on the squadron level, where the commander states his goal for the year is to train up x number of aircrews, x UDF teams, etc, but I'm not aware of anything from higher up.  If you ask me, I think that would be a great initiative at the wing level.

As far as having less ground teams, you say that like it's a problem, and in some areas, I'm sure it very well would be.  However, I think 90% of CAP ELT searches can be done by UDF qualified members and don't require a GT rating.  Around here, it's 100%.  I would glady trade my ground team, which has never been used, for another qualified IC.  The hoops to jump through for GTM/GTL are just too much considering the very rare use of them, and the UDF requirements would provide a GOBD with what he needed to know anyways. 

So make UDF a substitute prereq for GOBD, and we'll have more members willing to train for the higher level positions.  You can always say, "Hey, I still need to have a ground team or 2 available" and train them up.

[Woodsy]

The prereq's for GOBD include GTL, which you need at least GTM3 to getm

We would have a lot more qualified IC's if that were changed.  Just saying, the only reason anyone around these parts qualifies as GTL or GTM3 is a path to GOBD, so they can then go on to IC. 

We have lot's of UDF missions around here, but in Florida, any sort of situation where one would need a 72 hour pack is hard to fathom. 

I would propose that GOBD require a GTL OR UDF. 

Why would I want to waste 4 SAREX's (2 sorties each for GTM3 and GTL) doing something useless that I'll never do again just to jump through the hoop on the route to IC?  No thanks, I'd rather fly anyways.  I  think we only have about 10 IC1's in the wing, and maybe 40 or so IC's period.  This process is hindering others from completing the process.

You don't need GTL for PSC/OSC. Just AOBD+GTM3 or GBD+MS.

I didn't say you needed it for PSC.OSC...  I said for GOBD, which you do need GTM3/GTL for. 

[JeffDG]

The prereq's for GOBD include GTL, which you need at least GTM3 to getm

We would have a lot more qualified IC's if that were changed.  Just saying, the only reason anyone around these parts qualifies as GTL or GTM3 is a path to GOBD, so they can then go on to IC. 

We have lot's of UDF missions around here, but in Florida, any sort of situation where one would need a 72 hour pack is hard to fathom. 

I would propose that GOBD require a GTL OR UDF. 

Why would I want to waste 4 SAREX's (2 sorties each for GTM3 and GTL) doing something useless that I'll never do again just to jump through the hoop on the route to IC?  No thanks, I'd rather fly anyways.  I  think we only have about 10 IC1's in the wing, and maybe 40 or so IC's period.  This process is hindering others from completing the process.

You don't need GTL for PSC/OSC. Just AOBD+GTM3 or GBD+MS.

Don't need GTM3 for PSC, AOBD+UDF is just fine.

[Spaceman3750]

The prereq's for GOBD include GTL, which you need at least GTM3 to getm

We would have a lot more qualified IC's if that were changed.  Just saying, the only reason anyone around these parts qualifies as GTL or GTM3 is a path to GOBD, so they can then go on to IC. 

We have lot's of UDF missions around here, but in Florida, any sort of situation where one would need a 72 hour pack is hard to fathom. 

I would propose that GOBD require a GTL OR UDF. 

Why would I want to waste 4 SAREX's (2 sorties each for GTM3 and GTL) doing something useless that I'll never do again just to jump through the hoop on the route to IC?  No thanks, I'd rather fly anyways.  I  think we only have about 10 IC1's in the wing, and maybe 40 or so IC's period.  This process is hindering others from completing the process.

You don't need GTL for PSC/OSC. Just AOBD+GTM3 or GBD+MS.

I didn't say you needed it for PSC.OSC...  I said for GOBD, which you do need GTM3/GTL for.

How can someone direct several teams if they don't know how to lead a single one?

[RADIOMAN015]

Bold comments

I think CAP needs to stay within a reasonable mission "box".   The issue with missions is you have to have the sustainability (trained personnel) for those missions.  Sometimes, the local things are due to the efforts of one or two motivated individuals, when they leave that program will likely die.

This is exactly the mentality that will cause CAP to eventually become redundant and dissolve.

CAP needs to continue to partner with the AF, DoD and other agencies to find ways we can expand our mission set and stay ready, reliable, and relevant. Increasing our mission-set while maintaining our core capabilities is a huge part of that.

Expand doing what   Basically what you see now is what CAP will be doing in ES for AF/DOD in the future.   Now will we get some additional high tech items like those FLIR and video camera equipment, etc surely that possible, but it still is the same missions just with some new technology added.  Nothing really has changed in CAP core missions since its' founding, perhaps just methods 

I think anything to do with AIR support is ripe for expansion.  (Along with the typical mission base functions that support the air, including the new photo ops editing function) 

I don't know what editing function you're talking about (have a link handy?), but I don't disagree with this sentiment.
Lets see we send up a plane with someone sitting in it and he/she takes some pictures, they come back to mission base and the photos are downloaded and join together with some software.  Although, I heard some rumors that they want to do this while flying, which should interesting, especially from a quality control standpoint, what we do need is another set of eyes looking at it prior to release to the customer.   The guy/gal on the ground doesn't necessarily have to be an airborne photographer.   Also if the aircraft took a vehicle GPS with them they also would have a better idea of where they were and wouldn't even have to refer to charts while flying around taking photos (actually same goes for ground teams in the photo recon mode, have a vehicle GPS with you so you have a perspective of where the roads/addresses where). 

The ground team field operations side of CAP still has really no strategic direction changes and is basically for the most part just a cadet retention tool (with perhaps with the exception of some real UDF team type activity).
RM

You're dead wrong. In several areas around the country CAP works closely with state and local agencies to greatly increase ground SAR capabilities. Even in the Massachusetts Wing (your wing, isn't it?), there are several mission developments that are driving training and tasking changes to keep the ground side of the house moving in a "strategic direction."  I was on the MAWG ES Staff a few years ago when we were working closely with the Mass State Police to showcase our capabilities and training, and I know that CAP still works in conjunction with them and MEMA.

The MA wing doesn't do anything directly with the State PD, the state PD by the state law conducts all the missing person ground searches in the Commonwealth.  They are much better equipped with helicopters that have FLIR as well as spot lights and can find lost people in minutes versus hours with this technology.   They also have dogs that can sniff things out.  MA wing is not certified for any missing person searches in the state, and there's been talk about certification in the distant past, BUT this got dropped when the interested wing staffer moved on   

Well the ground side surely can go take pictures for photo recon (even phones with cameras work fine for that).  You really don't need large numbers of people for that mission, 2 just as in UDF team would work fine.  Locally I guess shelter assistance might be possible and maybe a point of (relief supplies) distribution.  I think there's one squadron in the wing that worked on CERT qualification for it's members -- will be interesting to see how they get utilized in the community. (and it should be noted that CERT is much less expensive to the member in regards to time & equipment requirements)

What makes you think that any portion of Emergency Services is a "cadet retention tool." That seems like an awfully ignorant thing to say.

Well that's because that what's it is.  :angel: Even one of your former NESA instructors, who was in my squadron used to tell me that.    All this SAR ground team actual activity (which you train people at NESA for), must really be secret OPS, because in almost every press release for quite some time it seemed like local/county public safety officials were the personnel responding on the ground side to the aircraft crashes, etc.  Surely CAP aircraft were of significant usefulness in these missions.   Ground teams were of NO use.   It is what it is Ed ---  Surely IF the cadets get good knowledge/training out of this that will help them in an emergency in the future, all is not lost, and we should encourage them to take advantage of all training opportunities.  We've had a fair number of cadets/seniors go to NESA, and they were impressed with the training.    From my perspective in my area for most adults, (the ground team training) not worth the time or money to spend. 
RM     

[Eclipse]

All this SAR ground team actual activity (which you train people at NESA for), must really be secret OPS, because in almost every press release for quite some time it seemed like local/county public safety officials were the personnel responding on the ground side to the aircraft crashes, etc.

Again, speak for your own wing's shortcomings, not assumptions this is true nationwide.

In most states the EMA's and Sheriff's departments are the primary agency for the initial call, that doesn't mean that in a lot of states we
don't work with them.

[RADIOMAN015]

All this SAR ground team actual activity (which you train people at NESA for), must really be secret OPS, because in almost every press release for quite some time it seemed like local/county public safety officials were the personnel responding on the ground side to the aircraft crashes, etc.

Again, speak for your own wing's shortcomings, not assumptions this is true nationwide.

In most states the EMA's and Sheriff's departments are the primary agency for the initial call, that doesn't mean that in a lot of states we
don't work with them.

OK so lets use your wing, how many times have ground teams been called out to do "ground team" normal CAP trained tasks in the last year  (can you come up with the total man hours)    BTW filling sandbags doesn't count.
RM   

[Eclipse]

filling sandbags doesn't count.

I'm not having this conversation with you, if you want the numbers, go check the legislative days pamphlets.

You also don't get to define what is, or isn't, a CAP DR mission.

[RADIOMAN015]

filling sandbags doesn't count.

I'm not having this conversation with you, if you want the numbers, go check the legislative days pamphlets.

You also don't get to define what is, or isn't, a CAP DR mission.

Ahh, almost forgot about that.    Again the reality of this is for the most part CAP ground teams (other than specialized UDF teams), are not being utilized for the normal NESA/CAP tasks they have been trained for.   

You can get volunteers right off the street or for that matter and get them to fill sandbags -- ain't much training required for that.    My guess is CAP is so rabid about using their ground teams for doing "something" that surely this type of activity will be used.   Frankly this is more of a CERT activity, and we don't necessary need our personnel meeting GT requirements to fulfill this type of task (or many other tasks in a community)  In fact if we are using GT qualifications for community support likely we are artificially limiting our available personnel resources.   Again, I not against CAP filling sandbags, but right now that isn't a GT task as defined in current training/ops regulations.         
RM   

[Spaceman3750]

filling sandbags doesn't count.

I'm not having this conversation with you, if you want the numbers, go check the legislative days pamphlets.

You also don't get to define what is, or isn't, a CAP DR mission.

Ahh, almost forgot about that.    Again the reality of this is for the most part CAP ground teams (other than specialized UDF teams), are not being utilized for the normal NESA/CAP tasks they have been trained for.   

You can get volunteers right off the street or for that matter and get them to fill sandbags -- ain't much training required for that.    My guess is CAP is so rabid about using their ground teams for doing "something" that surely this type of activity will be used.   Frankly this is more of a CERT activity, and we don't necessary need our personnel meeting GT requirements to fulfill this type of task (or many other tasks in a community)  In fact if we are using GT qualifications for community support likely we are artificially limiting our available personnel resources.   Again, I not against CAP filling sandbags, but right now that isn't a GT task as defined in current training/ops regulations.         
RM

INWG invited my wing to come help them sandbag last year. Only GES was required. Moral of the story: some parts of the country apparently aren't as messed up as yours is.

I wouldn't expect that the folks helping the ARC set up and run a shelter would all be GTM. However, if the ARC says "OK, now go to this disaster zone and let us know how bad it is" I would definitely want qualified GTMs, simply because it's just as austere an environment as wilderness is.

At the eval the AF wanted us to photograph potential shelters, infrastructure, etc from the ground. I suspect that we will be adding this capability to our talking points soon.

[RiverAux]

What?  Now we're saying that CAP's ground SAR capability is being fully utilized across most of the country and that there are only a few Wings where it isn't being used very much?  Is this just a reaction to the person saying it (Radioman) because in pretty much every thread on CAP Talk that discusses ground SAR it is almost universally recognized that we're not being used fully because of rcodyomh adequate local resources (mostly on the left coast, it seems) or lack of CAP interest in developing the relationships necessary.

There is no need to develop a whole lot of new ES missions for CAP when ground SAR is one that we are already trained for and represent the largest single organization in the country involved in, but for which we are rarely utilized.  If we really made GSAR a high profile, high priority mission and worked with the locals, we could probably have more actual missions every year than we ever realized from missing airplanes. 

And while I wouldn't say ground teams are only a cadet retention tool, they certainly can play a big factor in recruiting (depending on the squadron).  As far as retention, the cadets that get hyped up about ground teams are probably more likely to leave once they realize that they're not going to get a lot of actual opportunities to use these skills.  In that way, they probably hurt retention. 

All that being said, I have advocated for some time that CAP develop some sort of strategy for ground-based disaster response outlining what sorts of missions we should be training for.  We've got to be more than just a general labor force or no one is really going to be interested in using us for much.

[Woodsy]

The prereq's for GOBD include GTL, which you need at least GTM3 to getm

We would have a lot more qualified IC's if that were changed.  Just saying, the only reason anyone around these parts qualifies as GTL or GTM3 is a path to GOBD, so they can then go on to IC. 

We have lot's of UDF missions around here, but in Florida, any sort of situation where one would need a 72 hour pack is hard to fathom. 

I would propose that GOBD require a GTL OR UDF. 

Why would I want to waste 4 SAREX's (2 sorties each for GTM3 and GTL) doing something useless that I'll never do again just to jump through the hoop on the route to IC?  No thanks, I'd rather fly anyways.  I  think we only have about 10 IC1's in the wing, and maybe 40 or so IC's period.  This process is hindering others from completing the process.

You don't need GTL for PSC/OSC. Just AOBD+GTM3 or GBD+MS.

I didn't say you needed it for PSC.OSC...  I said for GOBD, which you do need GTM3/GTL for.

How can someone direct several teams if they don't know how to lead a single one?

That's my point.  There is no need for someone to direct several ground teams.  Because ground teams are never used.  Period.  Take note that as I said in my previous post, that I am in fact talking about my area.  I do realize that they are used in some places.  We utilize UDF teams here.  So by making UDF the prereq rather than ground team, you'd still have a GOBD that is familiar with the teams.  As it stands now, we have GOBD's that are not qualified in UDF directing several UDF teams.