CAP abandoned ground search decades ago. It's only still on the books because of the number of squadrons that use ground team "training" as a cadet activity.

Quote from: Hippidy on November 29, 2025, 06:29:44 AM

Quote from: NIN on November 20, 2025, 03:48:40 PM

I'm totally behind this as well! That way OCP and the Blueberries are at least the same cut and design.
Someone send it up the chain!

Quote from: Hippidy on November 29, 2025, 06:29:44 AM

Quote from: NIN on November 20, 2025, 03:48:40 PM[redacted pic]

I'm totally behind this as well! That way OCP and the Blueberries are at least the same cut and design.
Someone send it up the chain!

Or move everyone to blue.

Quote from: NIN on November 20, 2025, 03:48:40 PM

I'm totally behind this as well! That way OCP and the Blueberries are at least the same cut and design.
Someone send it up the chain!

Interesting. That sounds like a pretty sensible thing to do. I could see how there could be a perception that a squadron member working at the wing level could potentially influence the treatment of their home unit.
In Wings with policies like that, I'm curious if they would still allow the member to retain whatever duty assignment they had at their squadron. For example, could a member transfer to 001 as the Wing's LG, but keep their LGT role at a local unit as an ADY? 

Also, while that suggests a reason for transferring someone when they get a Wing duty assignment, are there any compelling reasons against to transferring someone? Administratively, it seems simpler to have people assigned at the lowest reasonable level (keeping squadron-level actions at the squadron level), but are there any other considerations?

I suppose I can offer a bit of context to my questions: I recently had a conversation with my Wing Commander about a member who requested a transfer to 001. They hold active, primary assignments at both the Wing and Squadron levels. Operationally, there's seemingly no benefit to transferring them, but there's also no clear drawback to doing so, either. We eventually landed on the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach and kept them assigned to their local unit. It got me thinking, though, so now I'm curious how other HHQs handle it.

Some wings have an unwritten policy that directors of key areas (Ops, Finance, CP, etc) be members of the wing HQ unit to avoid any appearances of improprieties. 

Are they more effective or different than having someone be ADY as say, the wing DCP?  No idea, but if your DCP is assigned to a squadron, and that squadron seems to get all the choice assignments, or the wing DO's squadron always seems to get the new airplane, it may be time to ask some hard questions.  Because I can assure you, the folks in the field are asking them.

Thanks, but again, xx-000 is not the same as xx-001.

Xx-000 is the "reserve" squadron, and is often used as you mentioned. Xx-001, on the other hand, is the HQ unit. A wing Commander, for example, will be a member of 001. Other SMs can be transferred to 001, as well; I'm just wondering if there's any groups/wings/regions have a rule of thumb about when/why that happens.

The reason people are transferred to the XX-000 Squadron is that when assessing Squadrons for things like QCUA and others, the inactive members often don't have current TLC, Cadet Protection, or up to date ES Quals. When allocating resources to a squadron, and you have 20 Seniors, 10 of whom you've never seen or met, do they get the plane, van, or radios?

I didn't see a reference to rolling up the ocp sleeves in the same fashion as the bdu and abu uniforms, however the Air Force instruction defines it.

JV

Welp, I somehow got locked out of my account and I'm not receiving any of the the reset emails, so I guess I'm Adam (again) now.

Anyway, I don't mean the reserve squadron XX-000, but rather the HQ unit, XX-001.

Quote from: RiverAux on November 26, 2025, 02:07:26 AMI've been complaining on here for gee, getting close to 20 years now, that CAP needs to develop some sort of doctrine regarding what we want to do in regards to non-aviation related emergency services activities. 

We sort of know that we want our ground teams qualified for GSAR, but beyond that is a black hole filled in a hodgepodge way around the country as local needs and interests dictate all sort of other ground-based uses. Now, I'm okay with that as a way to test new capabilities, but NHQ has to be willing to take a demonstrated success and nationalize it. 

I've long advocated that GSAR could be the future of CAP ES as the need for that is much more extensive than Air SAR and since most local agencies lack any trained forces of their own.  I suspect that in quite a few states, CAPs GSAR capabilities exceed that of the vast majority of counties.  Making this switch is well within the expectations for CAP set by Congress. 

At one time I considered starting a senior squadron in a town of 60K outside our capitol that would be entirely focused on GSAR (no airplane and if pilots wanted to join, thats fine, but they would need to get their training with the unit in the capitol).  I had the background to pull it off, but frankly came to the conclusion that while the Wing probably wouldn't actively oppose it, their lack of interest in any GSAR activities, even when we had high quality Wing Commanders and staffs and even with a Wing ES officer strongly pushing GSAR, would ultimately doom the effort.  Perhaps this model would have failed and I wouldn't have been able to recruit enough adults to make it worthwhile, but several State Defense Forces have developed credible GSAR capabilities, so its not impossible.   

As a person who joined CAP as a cadet primarily because of GSAR, I hate to say it now, but CAP will never be taken seriously in this realm if cadets are participating.  I don't think this is the same for other ground-based ES activities, but we will never be able to promote any GSAR capability when we have to depend on pulling 14-year olds out of school to get enough members for a ground team. 

Now, regarding uniforms, I don't know that the CAP uniform situation is a major problem.  Locals are just fine with SAR teams wearing whatever they want, so I don't think that it is a big strike against us if we show up in several types of uniforms.  It doesn't help anything, but as long as there isn't anything so obviously wrong that any civilian would spot it, they'd be ok. 

River,

Thank you for the reply.

Yes, I would agree that CAP's capabilities may exceed that of some municipalities, but those local CAP units are made up of the very citizens within those areas. Billy Bob the volunteer fire chief's son and cousin are in CAP along with a 66-year-old Desert Storm veteran, a small business owner and her family, and a handful of others who like SAR, but aren't exactly well equipped or trained. They just follow the CAP Ground Team handbook that was published two decades ago, and the squadron van's tires are a no-go because they are out of date. However, two hours away in Big City USA, is a 50-person squadron with an airplane who are happy to assist, but the city folk aren't too familiar with the vast farmland and hilly terrain that Aunt Sally wandered off into last night.

Building a strong senior-only SAR squadron is a valid option and has been before, albeit mostly successful until the operating environment proved too challenging. In the mid-90s, specifically over a long July 4th weekend in Callao, VA, SAR organizations, to include CAP, was called to search for a missing airplane. There was a senior squadron who referred to themselves as "Rangers" (or something along those lines) who showed up in force. The heat, dense forest, and rolling terrain became too much for some of them. Wearing BDUs, cumbersome gear, and lacking physical endurance required for such an operation caused several to transition from rescuer to rescuee. Fortunately, my ground team (from a different wing with an MOA in place) happened to be properly equipped, trained, and conditioned to operate despite the weather and environment. We just happened to be younger and were very selective as to who got called for real missions.

Like you, I absolutely joined CAP as a cadet primarily because of GSAR and we did GSAR! A lot! Real world! From almost weekly ELT/EPIRBS to a few downed aircraft and missing people each year, at the time, we were very much the go-to resource for such missions. Different time, different landscape, different technology. I do think at one point in time, maybe for decades at a time, CAP was considered a viable GSAR resource throughout much of America. Unfortunately, I tend to agree with you that we probably won't be taken seriously moving forward and that has probably been the case longer than I'm willing to admit.

On the uniform piece, I should probably clarify that it's not the fact that we wear military-style uniforms, it's the fact that a single resource/organization, can show up with 10 people wearing eight different uniforms or version of uniforms. Blue or green flight suits, a variety of styles of polo shirts, BBDUs, ABUs, OCPs, and whatever NFL team jacket you can find.  For a paramilitary organization trying to help out with GSAR, it'd be hard to tell what's what and who's who. Who is in charge? The big guy in the skintight flight suit with eagles or the 22 year old outfitted in military camouflage with a $350 Eberlestock tactical pack?  Or maybe it's the 18 year old cadet wearing the Expert Ranger tab from HMRS. If we all showed up with the same tactical/utility pants, matching orange shirts that say "EMERGENCY SERVICES" on the back, and matching orange ball caps, and everyone had quality, professional-level equipment, then maybe we've accomplished the first step of being recognized as worthy of being present.

Or maybe I'm just over thinking it. Which wouldn't be the first time. Maybe there's a balance in there somewhere.