Making Ground Teams a wing operation

Started by RiverAux, April 24, 2010, 03:23:04 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RiverAux

The latest issue of the Arizona wing newsletter discusses how they have more or less consolidated ground team operations to the wing level.  Below is an excerpt:
QuoteRecently Arizona Wing revamped its
Ground Operations Branch, and created regional ground teams capable of responding to
any event or mission assigned to them.

The new system, which organizes ground teams at the wing level, creates a central point
of contact for all missions, and realigns the organization to closely match Incident
Command System (ICS) principles.

Developed by Capt Dallas Lane, Arizona Wing Director of Ground Operations, the system
capitalizes on CAP's most abundant, and important, resource: its members. "In the fire
service, they rely on '1/3 manning.' Meaning that in order to field a fully functional team at
any given time, you'll need at least three times the required team members," said Capt
Lane. "To have a working ground team, you needed a ground team leader, and up to
eight members, which created the need for a minimum pool of 27 fully qualified members
to field a complete team. No squadron in Arizona, by itself, currently has that capability."
Early systems relied on ground teams at the group level, but that system caused varying,
and conflicting, procedures from group to group. Now under "one roof" Ground
Operations can standardize training, procedures and alerting rosters without having to
organize with units several hundred miles away.

This would seem to make a lot of sense to me.  I agree with the need to have 3x as many people on the roster as needed to carry out any individual mission and it is true that most squadrons aren't going to be able to do that on their own for ground teams. 

However, the big obstacle I see to implementing something like this is that it will require a lot more consolidated training requiring more travel on the part of members.  I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but I see a hard time ahead for those wanting to get funding for that sort of thing.  The mindset in CAP seems to be that most ground team training should be done at unfunded FTXs and I have seen it be difficult to get wing funding for ground-only training. 

However, consolidating training could actually lead to an enhancement of ground team capabilities in many squadrons that just don't have enough ground personnel on their own to have a viable program at all.  But, even if only 4 or 5 want to do ground team and they have the opportunity to train as a part of a larger group and to be called out as part of a larger group they'll probably keep with the program rather than just let the quals lapse. 

AirAux

While I agree with you, I feel that it will be cumbersome to assemble ground teams at the time of need, timely, from qualified members from around the state.  Trying to assemble personnel for an immediate need from distances of perhaps 100-150 miles will probably prove unworkable over a sustained period.

PHall

I would love to see them try this in a big state, like California or Texas. >:D
I'm willing to bet that Arizona Wing won't be able to pull this off for the very same reason.
Too much area to cover with too few folks.

RiverAux

Oh, I agree that its far from ideal, but the reality has been for some time that most squadrons can't field a real ground team on a reliable basis and most probably never will so we have to have some sort of strategy to address the issue.   

And I agree that such Wing level ground teams are not going to be able to respond to most lost person searches, which are usually resolved in a matter of a couple of hours.  Only a prepared unit in that county is likely to be of use then.  However, if we're talking about larger, multi-day searches, having 3 or 4 squadrons send small groups to a single location to form a real ground team would be workable.  In practice, this is what we usually do anyway. 

Obviously, this concept would work better with small wings or those so large that they have groups and could be implemented at a group level. 

Short Field

Our wing has conducted all ES operations, air or ground, as a wing level function for years.  Incidents begin with a IC being notified.  The IC then alerts the wing personnel to get volunteers to man the mission. 

Very few squadrons have the resources to man a mission base and deploy ground and air teams.  Individual training is conducted by the squadrons, larger level training (SAREXs) are conducted by the Wing.

SAR/DR MP, ARCHOP, AOBD, GTM1, GBD, LSC, FASC, LO, PIO, MSO(T), & IC2
Wilson #2640

wingnut55

we need to recruit and improve retention. if not we are paper Tiger

ZigZag911

Quote from: PHall on April 24, 2010, 04:05:58 PM
I would love to see them try this in a big state, like California or Texas. >:D
I'm willing to bet that Arizona Wing won't be able to pull this off for the very same reason.
Too much area to cover with too few folks.

In a big state you'd do it on the group level.

tsrup

#7
Quote from: ZigZag911 on April 24, 2010, 11:59:33 PM
Quote from: PHall on April 24, 2010, 04:05:58 PM
I would love to see them try this in a big state, like California or Texas. >:D
I'm willing to bet that Arizona Wing won't be able to pull this off for the very same reason.
Too much area to cover with too few folks.

In a big state you'd do it on the group level.

Or what if you're big state doesn't have groups. 
Our wing has 9 squadrons to cover almost 80000 square miles.

The wing level idea would be outstanding if you were in an area with a larger CAP presence. 

Somebody in AZ thought it would be a good idea for them, and it will probably work... for them. 
Paramedic
hang-around.

RiverAux

QuoteOur wing has 9 squadrons to cover almost 8000 square
8000 square miles puts you as just slightly bigger than CT, which I don't think many would consider a "big" state.  Arizona, by the way, is our 8th largest state. 

QuoteThe wing level idea would be outstanding if you were in an area with a larger CAP presence. 
Actually, it is a strategy for dealing with a lack of CAP presence in a large state with relatively few CAP members.  If there was a large CAP presence, local units would most likely be able to take care of themselves or be able to call upon a nearby squadron for help when needed. 

Arizona has 30 GTLs and 65 GTMs (probably some overlap with the GTLs) which means that the best case scenario is that they might get 15-20 ground team members on a search.   I suspect that on average its probably half of that. 

ßτε

I think he meant almost 80,000 sq mi, making it about the size of SD. Not as big as AZ but much larger than CT.

tsrup

Quote from: bte on April 28, 2010, 12:50:43 AM
I think he meant almost 80,000 sq mi, making it about the size of SD. Not as big as AZ but much larger than CT.

Correct, I realized my mistake. 
And you are correct in the size assumption as my state is in fact SD  ;D

Paramedic
hang-around.

ZigZag911

To clarify, I meant a state with a large general population and many CAP units/members...no disrespect intended to those states large in area but with fewer people...they face a very different situation...just another indication that :one size fits all" does not always work in CAP!

RADIOMAN015

I think every wing needs to ensure they have qualified ES folks in every area of the state.   When (or should I say IF) the call comes for a GT, there's got to be a maximum response time built into any model.  If it's going to take a team 3 hours just to form up, than this program isn't working.   Generally a GT should assembled (at their departure/dispatch point "advance mission base") at most in 1.5 hours from time of alert and be ready to go immediately if it becomes necessary.
RM


RiverAux

In a situation like this obviously you're not going to have all the CAP members drive to a single location to meet up and then drive to the site.   

You're going to have each group coming drive directly to the site and meet up there.  If its going to take members from several different units before you have enough for a ground team and most likely they're going to come from differing distances. 

So long as everyone is out on the road in a reasonable period of time, it can be made to work.  so its likely that someone may have to wait around for a while for the second group to show up. 

So far in my experience we usually get the call in the form of a request for people the next day.  If that is the case, there is usually going to be enough time that the various groups could drive to the site and camp out and all be ready to start at once in the morning.  In that situation there will be plenty of time for people to come from all over to meet up.