I would like some scenario ideas. The old downed AC search, person search and photo mission scenarios that I have been using could use some rehab. Does anyone have any examples of scenarios their wing uses for SAREXs? If so please send me some of them if possible.
Quote from: sdcapmx on October 31, 2009, 12:29:20 AM
I would like some scenario ideas. The old downed AC search, person search and photo mission scenarios that I have been using could use some rehab. Does anyone have any examples of scenarios their wing uses for SAREXs? If so please send me some of them if possible.
I think "it is what it is"... Not sure what else we do. We shouldn't be spending AF/taxpayers money on scenarios that we would never do or are closer to fiction than fact.
Perhaps the key element is to ensure exercises are conducted in various topographical areas in your wing which offer challenges to aircrew pilots, observers & scanners; DF/UDF air/ground; & also ground teams.
Perhaps when there's something unique that occurs during an actual unclassified mission that could be crossfeed through operations as sort of a "challenges overcomed"/"lessons learned" type reports that could aid in exercise construction (FEMA actually has an independent on line course you can take on exercise planning).
RM
Here's one perfect for fall.
Put out your panels near a nice, big, pile of leaves, and have a "trusted agent" get a good, smokey, fire going (in areas leaf burning is legal).
Send the aircrews out for a missing aircraft with no ELT and see if they ping on the fire enough to see your panels.
Another thing - some wings do this already, some don't.
Have a separate OPFOR who's only job is to setup the scenarios, targets, beacons, etc.
They should be completely separate from the command team, and give clues in the same kind of hap-hazard, random fashion as a real-world would trickle information. Safety of the OPFOR can be maintained by having them do roll-calls lilke everyone else, but beyond that they are ghosts.
Far too many missions are setup by the activity POC, who also is the IC, which means he, and probably
the main ICP staff know where everything is before they start.
Further, finding actual aircraft parts like fuselages, tails, wings, etc., isn't as hard as you might think from FBOs, and they can make the scenarios more realistic.
Here are some other threads on CAP Talk to look through.
One (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=6799.0).
Two (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=6955.0).
Three (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=7506.0).
Four (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2448.0).
Eclipse is right on target. That is all to often the case.. The IC should be surprised by what is happening not the one planning the exercise.
One of the more entertaining scenarios that I use is to place the ELT in a hangar inside an aircraft with a mechanic working around the area. When the ground team is observed arriving, the mechanic rolls a die - if its even, he's cooperative; if its odd, he's not.
Quote from: sdcapmx on October 31, 2009, 05:31:43 AM
Eclipse is right on target. That is all to often the case.. The IC should be surprised by what is happening not the one planning the exercise.
http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/is139.asp
Bob, those are some excellent examples. Realistic is always nice, and usually forgone. :)
I also agree with the whole trusted agent and exercise evaluation team concept. Usually manpower prevents having enough people to just take care of the scenarios and feed exercise input (when I was in CAP-USAF, the local folks would use us to feed the inputs while we were evaluating), but that doesn't happen nearly as often as, like you said, the IMT setting up the scenarios and then controlling the whole incident already knowing the outcome.
Of all the SAREX's I was at over 7 years I've got to say, the *one* where the IC had no clue what was about to happen .. was the best one.
The rest of them, from where the IC has people show up and "has a heart attack" so they can go off to lunch, (and leaves the base staffed by another who didn't know they were going to do it, and were not even prepared, but at least were properly rated) .. To the joke ones that are nothing more than a unit running a few of it's own people through 4 sorties to get mission scanner or observer out of the way and never do squat for ground team stuff, air/ground coordination/etc because they can't be bothered.
Those were in most cases, wastes of a weekend, especially after all the hype.
So, do your folks a favor. If you're gonna plan one, do it right or don't do it at all. Leave the funds to someone who will.
Well, a few weeks ago, our squadron did a SAREX where the Ground Team was told to investigate rumors of a midair collision (Due to possible bad weather, the cadets needed a relatively easy search)- and found a "crashed airplane" near a "UFO".
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=9285.0
We had fun with a squadron SAREX this weekend. It was the standard missing aircraft scenario, with an ELT search from the air and ground. The participants were totally in the dark, as the "trusted agent" was good at keeping a secret.
The unexpected twist was having the aircraft assigned to the squadron rotated out the day before the exercise. The newly assigned plane had been out for months with an engine replacement, so the pilots hadn't flown it in a while and the observers had never been in the right seat of this particular aircraft, so there was a new radio and audio panel to learn.
To add to the fun, the radio in the plane hadn't been updated with the latest programming. It took some trial and error to get everyone on the same frequency.
All in all, it was a good day. We were able to complete training for (2) MO, (1) MS, (1) MRO and (1) GTM3. Everyone walked away with new skills and lessons learned. Having to operate unfamiliar equipment is something that could very well occur during a real mission, along with communications issues, so we gained some valuable experience.